2022 Ohio 1703
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- On Oct. 25, 2017, Janet Withrow left an assisted‑living facility and later alleged she was struck from behind by a hit‑and‑run vehicle, knocked down, and run over; she was medevaced and treated for significant facial and cranial injuries.
- Only one eyewitness (Diedrea Vizedom) saw Withrow outside the building dazed and then fall; Vizedom did not see a vehicle strike Withrow.
- EMS notes and immediate hospital records documented facial/skull injuries consistent with a fall and did not note injuries to Withrow’s back or the back of her head; Withrow’s early medical records did not report a hit‑and‑run.
- Withrow later filed an uninsured motorist (UM) claim under her GEICO policy; GEICO denied coverage and the trial court granted summary judgment for GEICO.
- Withrow argued medical records and photographs independently corroborated her hit‑and‑run claim; she failed to file the photographs into the trial record, and the court found no independent corroboration.
- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment, concluding no substantial independent corroborative evidence supported Withrow’s UM claim under either the statute or the policy.
Issues
| Issue | Withrow's Argument | Geico's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether medical records/photographs constitute "independent corroborative evidence" for a hit‑and‑run UM claim | Withrow: medical records and photos (showing scalp wound/hair pulled out) corroborate her testimony that a vehicle struck and ran over her | Geico: records show only facial injuries consistent with a fall; photos were not in the trial record and there is no independent evidence of a vehicle impact | Court: No — medical records and EMS notes do not corroborate a vehicle strike; photos were not submitted into the record; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether the policy's more restrictive corroboration requirement alters analysis | Withrow: (implicit) policy should allow independent corroboration similar to statutory standard | Geico: policy requires corroboration independent of insured's testimony and no such evidence exists here | Court: Did not decide whether policy may be stricter than statute; Held Withrow failed to meet either the statutory or policy corroboration standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Snyder v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 114 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 2007) (UM coverage is permissive; statutory definition of "uninsured motorist" and corroboration requirement described)
- Smith v. Erie Ins. Co., 148 Ohio St.3d 192 (Ohio 2016) (medical records and other items derived from the insured may qualify as independent corroborative evidence)