Sauer v. Crews (Slip Opinion), 18 N.E.3d 410

This case concerns whether Century Surety Company’s commercial general-liability policy provides coverage for a trailer involved in a fatal roadway collision.
In 2006, Augenstein’s vehicle collided with a flatbed trailer owned by Crews during paving work in Grove City, Ohio; Augenstein died from injuries.
Executors of Augenstein’s estate sued Crews, and Crews sought coverage under Century’s CGL policy; Century counterclaimed for non-coverage.
Trial court found Crews solely liable for the accident and entered damages; on remand, the court analyzed policy language about mobile equipment and cargo.
The appellate courts held the policy may be ambiguous about cargo; the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed, holding that the policy clearly excludes trailers from coverage as autos.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the policy ambiguity determined by context?	Crews argued ambiguity from undefined term cargo.	Century argued context governs ambiguity.	Context determines ambiguity; policy is unambiguous and excludes trailer.
Does the CGL policy exclude the trailer from coverage as an auto?	Crews contends trailer may be mobile equipment, thus covered.	Century argues trailer is an auto and not mobile equipment.	Trailer excluded from coverage as an auto; mobile equipment exception inapplicable.

Sharonville v. American Employers Ins. Co., 109 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2006) (interpretation of insurance contracts; ambiguity treated strictly against insurer)
Gomolka v. State Automobile Mut. Ins. Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 166 (Ohio 1982) (read policy as a whole; parse context for intention)
Hybud Equip. Corp. v. Sphere Drake Ins. Co., Ltd., 64 Ohio St.3d 657 (Ohio 1992) (ambiguity rules; strict construction against insurer when ambiguous)
King v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 1988) (ambiguity construed strictly against insurer; favorable to insured)
Hacker v. Dickman, 75 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 1996) (cannot create ambiguity where none exists)