Safe Auto Insurance v. Semenov, 947 N.E.2d 1267

Safe Auto issued a policy to Semenov; Semenov later acquired a 1999 Mercury Sable; McGregor was a passenger in the accident with Taggart; Safe Auto sued for declaratory judgment seeking no coverage; the trial court granted Safe Auto summary judgment; on remand, the parties maintained prior motions and the court again ruled for Safe Auto, concluding a Named Operator-Non-Owned Vehicle policy; McGregor appeals arguing error in granting summary judgment; the appellate court sustained McGregor’s assignment of error and reversed, remanding for trial on coverage issues; the dissent would affirm the trial court’s decision as not ambiguous and propose summary judgment in Safe Auto’s favor on coverage

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the policy is Named Operator-Non-Owned Vehicle coverage or coverage for a specific vehicle	Safe Auto contends NONOV governs, excluding Semenov-owned vehicles	McGregor argues policy is ambiguous and may cover the Mercury Sable	Ambiguity exists; issues of coverage to be resolved at trial
Whether the declarations page ambiguities permit extrinsic evidence to interpret the policy	Safe Auto relies on extrinsic evidence to show NONOV coverage	McGregor contends extrinsic evidence cannot contradict written terms	Extrinsic evidence permissible to interpret ambiguity; remand for resolution of coverage
Whether McGregor is an insured under the policy given the policy’s terms	McGregor would be insured if vehicle is covered under the policy’s terms	McGregor asserts coverage despite ambiguity; seeks affirmance of trial court’s decision	Material facts unresolved; issue of coverage must be determined at trial

Kelly v. Med. Life Ins. Co., {unprovided official reporter} (Ohio 1987) (interpretation of insurance contracts; plain language governs unless ambiguity)
Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (Ohio 1978) (strict construction of written contracts; plain meaning controls)
Hamilton Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Nationwide Ins. Cos., 66 Ohio St.3d 270 (Ohio 1999) (intent of parties; look to contract language; insurance context ambiguity favors insured only if reasonable)
Shifrin v. Forest City Ents., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 635 (Ohio 1992) (extrinsic evidence allowed to ascertain intent when contract ambiguous)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (Ohio 2003) (contract interpretation; ambiguity and defenses in insurance contracts)
Burgess v. Tachas, 125 Ohio App.3d 294 (Ohio 1998) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
Morfoot v. Stake, 174 Ohio St. 506 (Ohio 1963) (ambiguous contract interpretation; treat reasonably)