 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mays v. Taylor12/14/2001
of settlement or payment by Allstate was ever made, even on the date of and during the trial." (Amended Judgment Entry, September 19, 2000).
The trial court's reasoning is supported by the record and consistent with the principles guiding the imposition of prejudgment interest under Section 1343.03(A). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it directed Allstate to pay prejudgment interest from April 6, 1998.
Appellant's second assignment of error maintains that, "The trial court erred in applying the `per accident' limits when Allstate's policy of insurance clearly and unambiguously states that the derivative claims of James And Mary Mays were consolidated and subject to a single per person limit of $100,000."
Appellant argues that the $200,000 awarded Appellee in this case was calculated erroneously, because the Mays' uninsured motorist policy plainly limits derivative claims for death or bodily injury by subjecting them to a total "per person" limit of $100,000. Based on the record, this assignment of error has merit.
When it reduced the $250,000 jury verdict to $200,000, the trial court reasoned that Allstate's uninsured motorist provision was ambiguous with respect to whether Appellee's claims were consolidated under its "per person" limit or distinct under the $300,000 "per accident" limits. The trial court found that such an ambiguity entitled the Mays to collect a total of $200,000 under the "per accident" provision for the wrongful death of their son.
Whether, or the extent to which, an individual is covered under a particular insurance policy is an issue of law. Gomolka v. State Automobile Mut. Ins. Co. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 166, 167. Issues of law are subject to de novo review. Hillyer v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (1999), 131 Ohio App.3d 174, 175.
As in any contract dispute, this Court examines insurance policies to ascertain the intent of the parties who entered into it and to settle upon a reasonable interpretation of disputed terms in a manner calculated to give the agreement its intended effect. Burris v. Grange Mutual Ins. Co. (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 84, 89. Terms under the policy are given their plain and ordinary meaning. Jones v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (June 21, 1999), Mahoning Co. App. No. 96 CA 43, unreported. Where the policy language is clear and unambiguous, this Court has no authority to rewrite or otherwise construe the language the parties have adopted. Gomolka, supra, at 168.
The policy provisions at issue here are clear and unambiguous. They clearly limit the Mays' total recovery for the death of their son to $100,000. The Allstate automobile insurance policy issued to the Mays provides for and limits uninsured motorist coverage in a section entitled: "The Uninsured Motorists Coverage - Bodily Injury." That section explicitly limits uninsured motorist coverage to the maximum amount allowed under the policy for any one accident. (Allstate Auto Ins. Policy, p. 13.)
Under Allstate's Auto Policy Declaration, the above referenced policy limits are $100,000 per person with a maximum of $300,000 per occurrence. (See, Plaintiff's Reply to Allstate's Alternative Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or New Trial, Exh. D, p. 1). The policy defines each person and each accident as follows:
"1. ` ach person' is the maximum that we will pay for damages arising out of bodily injury to one person in any one motor vehicle accident, including damages sustained by anyone else as a result of that bodily injury.
"2. ` ach accident' is the maximum we will pay for damages arising out of bodily injury in any one motor vehicle accident. This limi
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.
|
|