Washington v. Geico Ins. Co.
2014 Ohio 4375
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Washington, a passenger in a car insured by GEICO, sought UM/UIM coverage under Burse's GEICO policy after a 2011 hit-and-run injury.
- Burse's GEICO policy included UM/UIM coverage and defined insureds for UM/UIM purposes.
- Washington argued the policy heading “your passengers” created ambiguity and extended coverage to her as a passenger.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, ruling Washington was not an insured under the policy.
- The court later granted GEICO judgment, prompting Washington to appeal asserting ambiguity should be construed in her favor.
- The appellate court applied de novo review to contract interpretation and held the policy language, not the heading, controlled case outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UM/UIM coverage extends to Washington as a passenger | Washington contends the heading creates ambiguity in her favor | GEICO argues only insureds receive UM/UIM benefits per the policy language | Ambiguity rejected; Washington not an insured under the policy |
| Whether the heading alone creates an enforceable ambiguity | Washington asserts the heading should expand coverage | Heading is not controlling; analysis must follow policy as a whole | Heading does not create ambiguity; policy language governs |
Key Cases Cited
- Holliman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 86 Ohio St.3d 414 (Ohio 1999) (insurer can define who is an insured; heading not controlling)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (Ohio 2003) (policy terms read in context; heading is only directional)
- Parilla v. Parilla, 165 Ohio App.3d 802 (Ohio App.3d 2006) (placement under a heading does not create ambiguity where language is clear)
- King v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 1988) (insurer may define who is insured under the policy)
- Shepherd v. Scott, 2002-Ohio-4417 (Ohio 2002) (contract interpretation allowed to determine who is insured)