Spaeth v. State Auto Mut. Ins. Co.
2012 Ohio 3813
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Spaeth appeals after summary judgment favoring CIC on umbrella-policy coverage for Robert Schill.
- Policy defines “resident relative” as one who resides in the named insured’s household and shares the same legal residence of domicile.
- Issue is whether James Schill’s domicile is Ohio or Florida for policy purposes.
- Robert is James’s blood relative; his eligibility depends on James’s domicile and shared residence.
- Trial court found James domiciled in Florida, thus denying Robert coverage; appellate court reverses.
- Court’s governing framework: domicile requires both actual residence and animus to remain; mere ownership or tax status alone is insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is James’s domicile Ohio for policy purposes? | Spaeth argues James never abandoned Ohio domicile. | CIC argues James changed domicile to Florida. | James remained Ohio domicile for purposes of the policy. |
| Are there genuine material-fact disputes on domicile? | Spaeth contends facts show Ohio domicile; evidence creates dispute. | CIC contends no genuine issue; domicile shown as Florida. | No genuine issue; Ohio domicile established. |
| Is Robert an insured under the Policy regardless of domicile location? | If Robert qualifies as a resident relative, he is insured. | If James’s domicile is Florida, Robert is not insured. | Robert qualifies as a resident relative and is insured under the Policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Ohio 1998) (de novo review of declaratory judgments; standard for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment burden and nonmoving party must show genuine issues)
- Landingham v. E. Cleveland, 97 Ohio App.3d 385 (Ohio 1994) (burden-shifting in domicile proof; old domicile presumed until changed)
- Holtz v. Holtz, 2d Dist. No. 2005-CA-43, 2006-Ohio-1812 (Ohio 2006) (two elements for change of domicile: fact and animus)
- Senn v. Cleveland, 2005-Ohio-765 (8th Dist.) (duality of domicile and evidence considerations)
- Kelly v. Med. Life Ins. Co., 31 Ohio St.3d 130 (Ohio 1987) (interpretation of insurance contracts; policy language controls)