 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mays v. Taylor12/14/2001
t is subject to the limit for `each person.'" (Allstate Auto Ins. Policy, p. 13). Bodily injury under this policy is expressly defined as, "physical harm to the body, sickness, disease or death." (Allstate Auto Ins. Policy, p. 3).
The policy also states that liability limits may not be added to the limits for similar coverage applying to other motor vehicles to determine the limit of insurance coverage available regardless of the number of policies or vehicles involved, people covered or claims and premiums paid. Then, in bold letters, the policy expressly precludes an insured from stacking or aggregating uninsured motorist insurance. (Allstate Auto Ins. Policy, p. 13).
This Court recognizes that under R.C. §2125.02(A)(1), both parents of wrongful death victims are presumed to suffer damages. Moore v. State Auto (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27. That section, however, must be read in light of R.C. §3937.18(H), which states:
"Any automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance that includes coverages offered under division (A) of this section [uninsured or underinsured] and that provides a limit of coverage for payment for damages for bodily injury, including death, sustained by any one person in any one automobile accident may, notwithstanding Chapter 2125 of the Revised Code, include terms and conditions to the effect that all claims resulting from or arising out of any one person's bodily injury, including death, shall collectively be subject to the limit of the policy applicable to bodily injury, including death, sustained by one person, and for the purpose of such policy limit shall constitute a single claim. Any such policy limit shall be enforceable regardless of the number of insureds, claims made, vehicles or premiums shown in the declarations or policy."
The aforementioned provision explicitly gives insurance companies the authority to limit derivative claims to a single "per person" limit.
Such an approach is consistent with that taken in connection with a similar policy provision in Kleinsmith v. Allstate Ins. Co. (December 22, 2000), Richland App. No. 00 CA 14-2, unreported. In Kleinsmith, after sustaining injury in an automobile accident, the plaintiff recovered the $12,500 liability limits of the other driver's policy. The plaintiff, his wife and the couple's two children then sought underinsured benefits through the plaintiff's policy with Allstate. The Allstate policy provided uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits in the amount of $12,500 per person and $25,000 per accident. Allstate denied the claim because there was only one person injured in the accident and he had already received his $12,500 per person limit under other driver's insurance policy. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company.
The trial court's summary judgment decision in Kleinsmith was affirmed on appeal. In so holding, the reviewing court concluded that the policy language used, virtually identical to that employed by Allstate in the instant case, "clearly and unambiguously limits coverage for all claims arising out of and resulting from the bodily injury sustained by one person to the single `each person' limit of $12,500.00." Id. at p. 4.
This Court simply cannot agree with Appellee's insistence that the policy is confusing with regard to policy limits. The plain language used in the provision at issue both in Kleinsmith and in the instant case unequivocally bars the insured from collecting on derivative claims for bodily injury beyond the established per person limit.
While this appeal was pending, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court decision in Klein
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.
|
|