Washington v. Evans, 2021 Ohio 587

On Feb. 24, 2017 Jazmine Washington was struck by an uninsured motorist while at or immediately adjacent to a 2008 Mercury Mountaineer she leased.
Washington lived with her grandmother, Mattie Micken, whose State Farm policy (covering a 2012 Suzuki only) provided uninsured motorist (UM) and medical-payments coverage but excluded vehicles that were not "your car".
The policy defined "insured" to include resident relatives while "occupying" a covered or defined vehicle; "occupying" was defined as "in, on, entering, or exiting."
State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing Washington was excluded from UM and medical-payments coverage because she was "occupying" a vehicle not covered by the policy; Washington testified she was approaching and reaching for the driver’s door and intended to get in.
The trial court granted summary judgment to State Farm, finding Washington was "entering" (thus "occupying") the Mercury and was not an insured for medical payments; the court also dismissed the bad-faith claim.
On appeal the court affirmed: Washington was "occupying" the vehicle (excluding UM coverage), the medical-payments issue was not preserved on appeal, and the bad-faith claim failed because the coverage denial was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Washington was "occupying" the Mercury at the time of the accident (UM exclusion)	Washington had not yet entered or touched the vehicle and turned away before impact, so she was not "entering" or "occupying."	She was approaching, facing the car, reaching for the door and intended to get in — conduct that falls within "entering" under the policy.	Court held Washington was "entering" the vehicle and therefore "occupying" it; the UM exclusion applied and insurer entitled to summary judgment.
Entitlement to medical-payments coverage under the policy	(Claim asserted below) Washington sought medical payments under State Farm's policy.	State Farm: Washington is not an "insured" for the Mercury because the Mercury is not a covered vehicle under the policy.	Appellate court: Washington did not preserve argument on appeal; trial-court finding that she was not an insured was not challenged and is waived.
Bad-faith claim against insurer for denying coverage	Washington alleged bad faith denial of UM and medical-payments benefits.	State Farm: Denial was legally justified because coverage did not apply.	Court held denial of coverage was correct, so bad-faith claim fails and summary judgment for insurer was proper.

Joins v. Bonner, 28 Ohio St.3d 398 (Ohio 1986) (construed "occupying"—look to immediate relationship between claimant and vehicle).
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Hunter, 128 Ohio St.3d 540 (Ohio 2011) (insurance-policy exclusions must clearly apply and are construed narrowly).
Hybud Equip. Corp. v. Sphere Drake Ins. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 657 (Ohio 1992) (contract-construction principles apply to insurance policies).
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Guman Bros. Farm, 73 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 1995) (interpretation of automobile policy is a question of law).
Robson v. Lightning Rod Mut. Ins. Co., 59 Ohio App.2d 261 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978) (noting difficulty and fact-specific nature of determining who is "occupying" a vehicle).
King v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 1988) (ambiguities in insurance policies construed against insurer).