 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Westfield Insurance v. Barnett11/17/2003
njury intended or expected by the Barnetts. Since the Cobbs' claims fall outside the coverage of the policy, Westfield has no duty to defend the Barnetts from those claims. The Barnetts' first assignment of error is meritless.
Bad Faith
. In their second assignment of error, the Barnetts allege as follows:
. "The trial court erred by dismissing the bad faith claim."
. This assignment of error is based upon the Barnetts' assumption that this court will find merit in their first assignment of error. Since there is none, this court does not need to address the merits of this assignment of error. "A bad-faith action will lie where an insurer refuses to pay a claim without reasonable justification." Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Rosko (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 698, 712. "Where a duty to defend has not been established, it certainly cannot be held that appellee was negligent, breached a contract or acted in bad faith when it refused to defend or provide coverage." Jones v. Cincinnati Ins. Co (June 21, 1999), 7th Dist. No. 96 CA 43. Accordingly, the Barnetts' second assignment of error is meritless.
. As each of the Barnetts' assignments of error are meritless, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.
Waite, P.J., and Vukovich, J., concur.
|