Reeder v. CetnarowskiReeder v. Cetnarowski
Aрpellee, Lee Reeder, and defendant, Harriet Cetnarowski, lived together in the same residence for over ten years, but were not married. On February 11, 1984, Harriet operated an automobile owned by Lee without оbtaining his permission. Harriet collided with a building causing damage to Lee’s automobile. At the time of the collision, Hаrriet had automobile liability insurance through appellant, Beacon Insurance Company of Americа (“Beacon”).
On February 21, 1986, Lee recovered a default judgment against Harriet in the amount of $2,614.85, plus interest at thе rate of ten percent. On March 24, 1986, Lee filed a supplemental complaint against Beacon, рursuant to R.C. 3929.06, in an effort to satisfy the judgment obtained against Harriet. Beacon filed an answer and counterclаim on May 27, 1986. In May 1987, cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by both Lee and Beacon. On June 24,1987, the trial court denied Beаcon’s motion for summary judgment and granted Lee’s motion for summary judgment. Beacon appeals, raising two assignments of error. This court affirms.
Assignment of Error I
“The municipal court erred in determining that Harriet Cetnarowski constituted an insured as defined within the policy of insurance issued to her by the Beacon Insurance Company of America.”
In its first assignment of еrror, Beacon asserts that the trial court erred in finding that Harriet was an “insured person” as defined in the insurance policy issued to her by Beacon. The relevant portion of the insurance policy provides as follows:
“Persons Insured. The following are insured under Part I:
“(a) with respect to the owned automobile,
“(1) the named insured and any resident of the same household,
“(2) any other person using such automobile with the pеrmission of the named insured, provided his actual operation or (if he is not operating) his other actual use thereof is within the scope of such permission, and
1 ‘(3) any other person or organization but only with respect to his or its liability because of acts or omissions of an insurer under (a)(1) or (2) above;
“(b) with respect to a non-owned automobile,
“(1) the named insured,
“(2) any relative, but only with respеct to a private passenger automobile or trailer,
“provided his actual opration [sic] or (if he is not operating) the other actual use thereof is with the permission, of the owner and is within the scope of such permission, and
“(3) any other person or organization not owning or hiring the automobile, but only with respect to his or its liability bеcause of acts or omissions of an insured under (b)(1) or (2) above.
“The insurance afforded under Part I applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, but the inclusion herein of more than one insured shall not operate to increase the limits of the company’s liability.” (Emphasis added.)
*92
Beacon asserts that the language of the provision and the typography, or the arrangement of the provision under subsеction (b)(2), unambiguously discloses that the provision applies to subsection (b)(1) as well as subsection (b)(2). The authorities cited by each party reach different conclusions as to the significance of the word placement. This court is persuaded by the reasoning in
McMichael
v.
American Ins. Co.
(C.A. 8, 1965),
Additionally, it is of some significance that the punctuation used does not refleсt that a separate or new thought begins with the word “provided,” or does not otherwise direct the reader to look at the preceding clause. And, even if the meaning ascribed by Beacon was to be the intent of thе drafter of this provision, the use- of margin differences alone does not accomplish this significance. Finally, a comparison of the typography of (a)(2) with (b)(2) would support the notion that the margin placement in (b)(2) wаs simply erroneously set.
The placement of the provision does not unambiguously disclose to a person of ordinary intelligence and experience its application to subsection (b)(1). Accordingly, construing the provision strictly against Beacon, this court finds that the trial court did not err in finding that Harriet was an insured person. Beаcon’s first assignment of error is overruled.
Assignment of Error II
“The Akron Municipal Court erred in finding that the policy of insurance issued to Harriet Cetnarowski provided coverage where the policy explicitly excluded coverage fоr property in the charge of the insured.”
Beacon’s second assignment of error asserts that the trial cоurt also erred in not finding that the automobile driven by Harriet was not covered by the policy. Beacon did not rаise this issue to the trial court in its motion for summary judgment, but did attempt to raise the issue in its post-judgment motion for “new trial, reсonsideration of prior decision.” Beacon did not appeal the trial court’s denial of its post-judgment motion, but instead appealed the trial court’s failure to find that the automobile was not covered by the policy when it entered summary judgment for Lee.
This court must initially determine whether Beacon properly raisеd and preserved this issue in the trial court through its post-judgment motion. If not, this court need not consider this issue on review.
Stores Realty Co.
v.
Cleveland
(1975),
The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a motion for reconsideration after a final judgment; therefore, such motion is a nullity.
Sakian
v.
Taylor
(1984),
Judgment affirmed.