361 N.E.2d 1068 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1976
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas that the following provision in defendant's auto insurance policy is void as against public policy.
"The term `uninsured automobile' shall not include * * * an automobile which is owned by the United States of America, Canada, or a state, or a political subdivision of any such government or an agency of any of the foregoing * * *."
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
The plaintiff, Jack Watters, a resident of Ohio, purchased auto insurance from the defendant company, which was authorized to do business in Ohio. Plaintiff's auto was involved in a collision in Savannah, Georgia, with a city of *107 Savannah sanitation department truck. The truck was uninsured and driven by a city employee.
The sole issue before this court is whether the trial court erred in finding the policy provision void as against public policy.
The defendant insurer argues that the exclusion of governmentally owned vehicles does not, in any way, affect plaintiff's ability to recover damages for his injuries. It says first, if the government unit involved invokes the doctrine of sovereign immunity, all the insurance in the world would make no difference, since the plaintiff would not be "legally entitled" to recover within the meaning of R. C.
We reject the defendant's arguments. As to the first, it fails to consider that the city's only liability would arise by virtue of the doctrine of respondeat superior and this would still leave plaintiff with an uninsured operator to sue. The second ignores that part of R. C.
The defendant further argues that the limitation here involved is a reasonable one and is a matter of contract under the theory of Globe American Cas. Co. v. Goodman (1974),
Our Supreme Court said in Barlett v. Nationwide Mut. Ins.Co. (1973),
"The basic purpose of R. C.
"As suggested by Abate and Curran, supra, R. C.
We find that this provision in the Dairyland policy restricts the amount and scope of coverage contrary to the intent of R. C.
Judgment affirmed.
VICTOR, P. J., and BRENNEMAN, J., concur. *109