 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mays v. Taylor12/14/2001
smith. The order memorializing that decision reflects that the Supreme Court reached its conclusion in light of its previous decisions in Littrell v. Wigglesworth (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 424, and Clark v. Scarpelli (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 271. See Kleinsmith v. Allstate Ins. Co. (July 5, 2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 218.
Though neither Clark nor Littrell tackle the same factual circumstances or coverage provisions at issue in the instant case, both decisions reflect the Supreme Court's favorable treatment of policy language restricting coverage. In Clark, the court found that insurance policy language clearly and unambiguously limited certain coverage. In Littrell, the court found that based on Clark, the total underinsured motorist recovery available to an insured could not exceed the limits provided for uninsured motorist coverage under the policy agreement. Littrell, supra, at 430.
Accordingly, Appellant's second assignment of error is sustained. This Court adopts the reasoning and approach taken in the Kleinsmith decision and thereby concludes that the trial court erred to the extent that it concluded that Appellee was entitled to recover under the $200,000 per occurrence policy limits where the per person limit was clear from the policy.
In accordance with the aforementioned discussion, this Court overrules Appellant's first and third assignments of error, but finds that its second assignment of error is meritorious. Consequently, the decision of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed in part and modified to reflect this Court's determination that under the limits of the Allstate Policy, Appellee is only entitled to damages in the amount of $100,000.
Vukovich, P.J., concurs.
DeGenaro, J., concurs.
|