2016 Ohio 5355
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- July 2011: Shane Wetzel was driving his girlfriend’s Chrysler 300 and was seriously injured when another driver ran a stop sign; the tortfeasor’s limits were insufficient.
- Wetzel sought underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under an Auto-Owners policy issued to his father’s trucking business (first named insured: Wayne D. Wetzel dba Wayne Wetzel Trucking).
- The policy’s Declarations named five commercial trucks and listed five "scheduled drivers," including Shane Wetzel; it did not define "scheduled driver."
- The policy expressly defined "you/your" as the first named insured (and spouse living with that insured) and contained liability, UIM, and extended UIM provisions tied to those definitions.
- Auto-Owners denied coverage for Wetzel’s accident because he was not occupying a listed, covered truck and was not the named insured, a resident spouse, or a resident relative who lacked an automobile. Wetzel sued; the trial court granted summary judgment for Auto-Owners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether listing Wetzel as a "scheduled driver" on the Declarations renders him "you" (a named insured) for extended UIM coverage | Wetzel: "scheduled driver" is undefined and ambiguous; ambiguity should be construed for the insured so the scheduled drivers become "you" entitled to extended UIM | Auto-Owners: "you" is unambiguously defined as the first named insured; "scheduled driver" merely indicates permission to drive covered trucks and does not expand "you" | Court: No ambiguity as to "you"; scheduled-driver listing does not make Wetzel a named insured or otherwise eligible for extended UIM when driving a non-covered vehicle |
Key Cases Cited
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Guman Bros. Farm, 73 Ohio St.3d 107 (policy interpretation is a question of law)
- King v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 208 (ambiguities in insurance contracts construed against insurer)
- Hacker v. Dickman, 75 Ohio St.3d 118 (ambiguity exists only if a provision is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation)
- Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 85 Ohio St.3d 660 (Ohio Supreme Court decision on corporate-named-insured context discussed by parties)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (limits placed on Scott-Pontzer)
- Kitmirides v. Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co., 65 Conn. App. 729 (listing as driver on declarations does not make person a named insured for UIM)
- Eldridge v. Columbia Mut. Ins. Co., 270 S.W.3d 423 (Mo. Ct. App.) (same: driver listing does not convert to named insured)