755 N.E.2d 455 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2001
Jane Haberley appeals from a decision of the Common Pleas Court granting summary judgment in favor of her insurance carrier, Nationwide Mutual Fire *313
Insurance Company, in connection with the death of her son, Russell Haberley. On appeal, Mrs. Haberley claims the court erred in granting Nationwide's motion for summary judgment and argues entitlement to uninsured motorist coverage for the fatal injuries suffered by Russell by operation of law or subject to the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000),
The parties do not dispute that on April 24, 1998, the Haberley's son, Russell, sustained fatal injuries to his head and chest as a front seat passenger in a Ford Explorer operated by uninsured motorist, Lena Beck, who lost control of her vehicle at the intersection of Andrews Avenue and the railroad tracks in Lakewood, Ohio. Donald and Jane Haberley filed a claim against their homeowners insurer, Nationwide, for uninsured motorist coverage.
Nationwide filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and thereafter, filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Haberleys opposed. On September 1, 2000, the court granted judgment in favor of Nationwide. The Haberleys appeal from this decision and raise one assignment of error, which states:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AS APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE IN THE POLICY ISSUED TO THEM BY APPELLEE NATIONWIDE.
The Haberleys urge the court erroneously granted judgment in favor of Nationwide and maintain their homeowner's policy also serves as an automobile liability policy, which entitles them to uninsured motorist coverage. Further, they contend the statutory amendments made to R.C.
In Kubicki v. City of North Royalton (Sept. 10, 1998) Cuyahoga App. No. 73454, unreported, this court stated:
It is well established that a trial court fails to fulfill its function in a declaratory judgment action by granting summary judgment without expressly *314 declaring the parties' respective rights and obligations. See Waldeck v. North College Hill(1985),
24 Ohio App.3d 189 ,190 , * * *; Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 806 (Mar. 3, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 65539, unreported.In Nickschinski v. Sentry Ins. Co. (1993),
88 Ohio App.3d 185 ,189 , * * *, this court stated:An action which seeks the declaration of rights and obligations is not the type of action ideally suited to disposition by summary judgment. Therefore, "`* * * as a general rule, a court fails to fulfill its function in a declaratory judgment action when it disposes of the issues by journalizing an entry merely sustaining or overruling a motion for summary judgment without setting forth any construction of the document or law under consideration. * * *'"
Id., citing Waldeck, supra,
24 Ohio App.3d at 190 , quoting Kramer v. West American Ins. Co., 1982 Ohio App. LEXIS 13009 (Oct. 6, 1982), Hamilton App. Nos. C-810829 and 810891, unreported.
In the instant case, the trial court's order granting Nationwide's motion for summary judgment does not expressly declare the rights and duties of the parties. Thus, we have concluded the instant case lacks a final appealable order. Therefore, pursuant to Civ.R. 54(B) and R.C.
Appeal dismissed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
_____________________ JAMES J. SWEENEY, J.