 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mays v. Taylor12/14/2001
sate the plaintiff for the period of time between accrual of the claim and judgment. Royal Electric, supra, at 117. R.C. §1343.03(A) applies even when the judgment arises from a disputed claim and when the sum due was not capable of being ascertained until determined by the court. Yuhanick v. Cooper (March 14, 2001), Columbiana App. 99 CO 37, unreported.
In Landis v. Grange Mutual Ins. Co. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 339, the Ohio Supreme Court found that because uninsured motorist claims are contract claims, based on "instruments of writing," an insured would be entitled to prejudgment interest under Section 1343.03(A). Id. at 341. When it reached this decision, however, the Supreme Court explicitly left the trial court to determine the amount of interest and, therefore, the event or condition that triggered its accrual. Id. at 342.
Appellant maintains that the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest from the date it denied coverage because at the time, Appellant reasonably disputed: 1) whether the Mays were covered for the wrongful death of their adult son under the policy; and 2) whether they were "legally entitled" to recover under the uninsured motorist provision of their policy. (Appellant's Brf. p. 21). Appellant argues that in light of Eagle American Ins. Co. v. Frencho (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 213, Appellee was not legally entitled to recover under the policy until the jury issued its verdict in the case.
Appellant's reliance on Eagle American is misplaced. There, the court affirmed the trial court's refusal to grant the plaintiff's request for prejudgment interest. Id. at 221. The Eagle American court did so, however, based on language incorporated in the insurance policy which stated that damages were not due and payable until the jury reached a verdict. Id. at 221. That language was not included in the Allstate policy at issue here.
The policy addressed in the instant case is more like that in Lovejoy v. Westfield National Ins. Co. (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 470. There, the insurer challenged the trial court's decision to grant prejudgment interest to the insured from the date he sustained injury. Id. at 476. The insurer contended that no prejudgment interest should be paid because the amount due was not ascertainable prior to trial and that, in any event, the insurer had reasonably disputed its duty to pay the claim. Id.
When it affirmed the prejudgment interest award in Lovejoy, this Court noted that the insurer will not delay the running of prejudgment interest by simply denying the claim. Moreover, as in the case now before this Court, the amount potentially owed under the contract in Lovejoy was not in dispute; the policy limits were clear. This Court noted that, "the fundamental obligation of an insurance company is payment of insurance proceeds to the insured upon the happening of an event covered under the policy." Id. When that event occurred, the insurer's duty was triggered. Thus, this Court concluded that prejudgment interest was properly assessed from that date. Id. at 477.
When it concluded that the interest on Appellee's claim became "due and owing" as of April 6, 1998, the trial court found that Appellant was clearly put on notice regarding the existence of Appellee's claim:
"The co-defendant, Danielle Taylor, entered a plea to aggravated vehicular homicide pursuant to her operations of the motor vehicle that caused the death of Curtis Mays. This certainly put Allstate Insurance Company on notice that there was an obligation to enter into settlement negotiations in this case, which it failed to do." (Amended Judgment Entry, September 19, 2000).
Further, the court noted that, "no offer
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|