Alicea v. American Alliance Insurance Co., Unpublished Decision (3-18-2004)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Alicea v. American Alliance Insurance Co., Unpublished Decision (3-18-2004)

2004 Ohio 1272

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 18, 2004

DocketCase No. 83339.

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2004 Ohio 1272 (Alicea v. American Alliance Insurance Co., Unpublished Decision (3-18-2004)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alicea v. American Alliance Insurance Co., Unpublished Decision (3-18-2004), 2004 Ohio 1272 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION {¶ 1} Appellant, Eduardo Alicea ("Alicea"), appeals the trial court's decision granting summary judgment to appellee, American Alliance Insurance Company ("American"), thus denying Alicea's claims pursuant to Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.85 Ohio St.3d 660, 1999-Ohio-292, 710 N.E.2d 1116 for injuries he suffered in an accident in December 1992 .

{¶ 2} In December 1992, while Alicea and others pushed Elizabeth Irizarry's car, which ran out of gas, to a nearby gas station, Michael Cocita, another motorist, struck Alicea and injured his leg. Although Alicea was employed by Arrow International Company, it is undisputed that, at the time of the accident, Alicea was not acting in the course and scope of his employment and instead was on a personal matter. Because Alicea was not acting within the course or scope of his employment at the time the accident occurred, Alicea cannot maintain aScott-Pontzer action. See Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis,100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, ¶ 61, 797 N.E.2d 1256 (" we hereby limit Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. to apply only where an employee is within the course and scope of employment.") Based on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision inWestfield Ins. Co., we need not address the arguments raised in Alicea's appeal, nor in American's cross-appeal. Thus, the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of American is affirmed.

{¶ 3} The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cooney and Rocco, JJ., concur.

It is ordered that defendants-appellees/cross-appellants recover of plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee their costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION {¶ 1} Appellant, Eduardo Alicea ("Alicea"), appeals the trial court's decision granting summary judgment to appellee, American Alliance Insurance Company ("American"), thus denying Alicea's claims pursuant to Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.85 Ohio St.3d 660, 1999-Ohio-292, 710 N.E.2d 1116 for injuries he suffered in an accident in December 1992 .

{¶ 2} In December 1992, while Alicea and others pushed Elizabeth Irizarry's car, which ran out of gas, to a nearby gas station, Michael Cocita, another motorist, struck Alicea and injured his leg. Although Alicea was employed by Arrow International Company, it is undisputed that, at the time of the accident, Alicea was not acting in the course and scope of his employment and instead was on a personal matter. Because Alicea was not acting within the course or scope of his employment at the time the accident occurred, Alicea cannot maintain aScott-Pontzer action. See Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis,100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, ¶ 61, 797 N.E.2d 1256 (" we hereby limit Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. to apply only where an employee is within the course and scope of employment.") Based on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision inWestfield Ins. Co., we need not address the arguments raised in Alicea's appeal, nor in American's cross-appeal. Thus, the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of American is affirmed.

{¶ 3} The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cooney and Rocco, JJ., concur.

It is ordered that defendants-appellees/cross-appellants recover of plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee their costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2004 Ohio 1272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alicea-v-american-alliance-insurance-co-unpublished-decision-3-18-2004-ohioctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack