{¶ 2} The present case stems from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2005. The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff-appellee, Mary E. O'Conner-Junke, sustained physical injuries in an accident that her now deceased husband, Robert E. Junke, negligently caused. At the time of the accident, O'Conner-Junke and her husband were cоvered under an automobile insurance policy issued by Allstate, which provided $15,000 in liability coverage and $15,000 in uninsured motorist ("UM") coverage, per person. The vehicle Robert Junke was driving when the accident occurred was covered under the policy.
{¶ 3} After Allstate denied coverage to O'Conner-Junke, she filed a complaint for damages, declaratory judgment, and uninsured motorists benefits against Allstate.
{¶ 4} On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment to Allstate in part with respect to the liability portion of the pоlicy, but denied it in part regarding "the application of the exclusion for [UM] coverage." The parties subsequently entered into a consent judgment entry and then stayed execution of judgment pending appeal. *4
{¶ 5} Allstate raises a sole assignment of error for review:
{¶ 6} "It was reversable [sic] error for the trial court tо partially deny [Allstate's] motion for summary judgment * * * because both the plain language and legislative intent of the governing version of [R.C.
{¶ 8} The moving party carries an initial burden of setting forth specific facts which demonstrate his or her entitlement to summary judgment. Dresher *5 v. Burt (1996),
{¶ 10} Allstаte denied liability coverage because O'Conner-Junke was married to the insured, and resided with him. Thus, as a "resident-relative," she was excluded from receiving liability coverage under the policy.
{¶ 11} "Intra-family" or "resident-relative" liability exclusions have long been held to be valid in Ohio. See Kuhnle v. Zander,
{¶ 12} Therefore, the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment to Allstate on the liability portion of the policy. Even in her brief in opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment regarding the liability exclusion, O'Conner-Junke conceded that this provision was valid. She stated that "if considered on its own, [she] would not contest the applicability or Allstate's ability to enforce the intra-family liability exclusion."
{¶ 13} The issue in this case then is not the "resident-relative" or "intra-family" exclusion in the liability section of the policy. O'Conner-Junke, however, argues that the "resident-relative" exclusion in the liability section, combined with the definition of what "anuninsured auto is not," acts to defeat coverage when the tortfeasor is a family member and this is not permitted under the current versiоn of R.C.
{¶ 15} Here, although Robert Junke's vehicle was "uninsured" since liability coverage was dеnied, Allstate nonetheless denied UM coverage because the vehicle fell within the definition of what "an uninsured auto is not." Specifically, the vehicle was an insured vehicle under the liability section of the policy, thereby precluding UM coverage under the policy.
{¶ 16} Thus, at issue in this case is not an "exclusion" at all, but a definition in the UM section of the policy, or an "anti-definition" as this court referred to it in Bousquet v. State Auto Ins. Co., 8th Dist. No. 89601,
{¶ 17} Allstate argues that the trial court erred because the рlain language of R.C.
{¶ 18} O'Conner-Junke contends that the UM policy conflicts with R.C.
{¶ 20} R.C.
{¶ 21} Under R.C.
{¶ 22} In 2001, the General Assembly extensively amended R.C.
{¶ 23} Although Snyder did not involve an intra-family exclusion, in reference to R.C.
{¶ 24} In Bousquet, supra, this court stated that the plain language of the phrase in R.C.
{¶ 25} Thus, based on the plain language of R.C.
{¶ 26} We further disagree with O'Conner-Junke that because the legislature removed language from the current statute that formerly allowed intra-family restrictions (see former R.C.
{¶ 27} In addition, O'Conner-Junke's reliance on Shay v. Shay,
{¶ 28} Finally, the language of the policy is clear and unambiguous. It excludes liability coverage for bodily injury to "resident-relatives," and exempts a motor vehicle that is insured under the liability policy from being an uninsured auto.
{¶ 29} Accordingly, as a matter of law, we find that the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment to Allstate on the liability portion of the policy, but it did err when it denied Allstate's summary judgment motion regarding UM coverage.
{¶ 30} Under the current version of R.C.
{¶ 31} Allstate's sole assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 32} The judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appеllee costs herein taxed.
*14The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuаnt to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
CHRISTINE T. MCMONAGLE, P.J. and PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., CONCUR
Notes
"As used in this section, `uninsured motor vehicle' and `underinsured motor vehicle' do not include any of the following motor vehicles:
"(1) A motor vehicle that has appliсable liability coverage in the policy under which the uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages are provided;
"(2) A motor vehicle owned by, furnished to, or available for the regular use of a named insured, a spouse, or a resident relative of a named insured."
R.C.
The next amendment to R.C.