Davidson v. Motorists Mutual Insurance

91 Ohio St. 3d 262
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedApril 11, 2001
DocketNos. 00-132 and 00-170
StatusPublished
Cited by113 cases

This text of 91 Ohio St. 3d 262 (Davidson v. Motorists Mutual Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davidson v. Motorists Mutual Insurance, 91 Ohio St. 3d 262 (Ohio 2001).

Opinion

Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.

On September 26, 1995, plaintiff-appellee Gerald Davidson sustained serious injuries in an automobile collision caused by the negligence of Gary Cusick. At the time of the accident, Cusick had in effect a $100,000 liability insurance policy issued by Farmer’s Insurance. Davidson was paid the full policy limit.

He then sought underinsured motorist coverage from his own motor vehicle insurance carrier, defendant-appellant Motorists Mutual Insurance Company (“Motorists”). According to Motorists, appellee made a claim under the uninsured motorist portion of his own automobile policy, which Motorists said it honored.

Seeking additional coverage, Davidson, along with his wife and children, also appellees, turned to their homeowner’s policy, issued by Motorists. Believing that there was additional coverage under their homeowner’s policy because it provided incidental coverage for certain vehicles, appellees filed a declaratory judgment action against Motorists, seeking underinsured motorist benefits.

Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to underinsured motorist coverage as a matter of law. Relying on Goettenmoeller v. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. (June 25, 1996), Franklin App. No. 95APE11-1553, unreported, 1996 WL 362089, the trial court found that since the homeowner’s policy provided liability insurance for the use of recreational vehicles, the homeowner’s policy was, in effect, a motor vehicle liability policy. Thus, the trial court granted appellees’ summary judgment motion and held that Motorists had been obligated to offer uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage (“UM/UIM”) under former R.C. 3937.18 and that because Motorists had not offered it, the coverage was in effect by operation of law.

[264]*264The court of appeals affirmed. Based upon Goettemnoeller and the recent decision of Selander v. Erie Ins. Group (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 541, 709 N.E.2d 1161, the court concluded that the Motorists homeowner’s policy was a motor vehicle liability policy subject to R.C. 3937.18 and that UM/UIM coverage existed by operation of law.

Upon motion, the court of appeals certified a conflict to this court, finding that its judgment conflicted with the decision from the Ninth District Court of Appeals in Overton v. W. Res. Group (Dec. 8, 1999), Wayne App. No. 99CA0007, unreported, 1999 WL 1215138. The cause is now before this court upon our determination that a conflict exists (case No. 00-170) and upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal (case No. 00-132).

The issue presented is whether limited liability coverage for certain vehicles rendered the policy a motor vehicle liability policy, subject to the requirement of former R.C. 3937.18 to offer UM/UIM coverage.1 For the reasons that follow, we find that the homeowner’s policy is not a motor vehicle liability policy and is not subject to former R.C. 3937.18,145 Ohio Laws, Part I, 210.

Former R.C. 3937.18 requires an insurer to offer UM/UIM coverage whenever an automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance is issued. If UM/UIM coverage is not offered, it becomes part of the policy by operation of law. Abate v. Pioneer Mut. Cas. Co. (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 161, 51 O.O.2d 229, 258 N.E.2d 429, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. Thus, an offer of UM/UIM coverage was required in this case only if the homeowner’s policy is a motor vehicle liability policy.

To determine whether the homeowner’s policy is a motor vehicle liability policy, we first turn to the language of the insurance contract itself. The homeowner’s policy at issue provides:

“COVERAGE E — Personal Liability

“If a claim is made or a suit is brought against an ‘insured’ for damages out of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘occurrence’ to which this coverage applies, we will:

“1. Pay up to our limit of liability for damages for which the ‘insured’ is legally liable.”

The homeowner’s policy then provides exclusions to coverage, including an exclusion relating to the use of motor vehicles by an insured. This exclusion states:

“SECTION II — Exclusions

[265]*265“1. Coverage E — Personal Liability and Coverage F — Medical Payments to Others do not apply to ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’:

* * *

“f. Arising out of:

“(1) The ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of motor vehicles or all other motorized land conveyances, including trailers, owned or operated by or rented or loaned to an ‘insured.’ ”

The policy then carves out an exception to this exclusion, affording coverage when injuries are sustained or property damage is incurred when using a limited class of vehicles. The policy provides:

“This exclusion does not apply to:

“(1) A trailer not towed by or carried on a motorized land conveyance.

“(2) A motorized conveyance designed for recreational use off public roads, not subject to motor vehicle registration and:

“(a) not owned by an ‘insured’; or

“(b) Owned by an ‘insured’ and on an ‘insured location’;

“(3) A motorized golf cart when used to pay [sic ] golf on a golf course;

“(4) A vehicle or conveyance not subject to motor vehicle registration which is:

“(a)' Used to service an ‘insured’s’ residence;

“(b) Designed for assisting the handicapped; or

“(c) In dead storage on an ‘insured location’ * * *

The court of appeals found, and appellees continue to argue, that by providing coverage for the above vehicles, the homeowner’s policy includes incidental coverage for motor vehicles and is, in effect, a motor vehicle liability policy.2 For support, the court relied primarily on Goettenmoeller v. Meridian Mut Ins. Co. (June 25, 1996), Franklin App. No. 95APE11-1553, unreported, 1996 WL 362089, and Selander v. Erie Ins. Group (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 541, 709 N.E.2d 1161.

Goettenmoeller was the first appellate decision in Ohio that addressed the issue of whether an insurance policy other than a standard automobile insurance policy [266]*266qualified as a “motor vehicle liability policy” for purposes of the requirement to offer UM/UIM coverage under former R.C. 3937.18.3

In Goettenmoeller, the plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident and sought coverage under her parents’ farmowner’s policy. The policy included coverage for the insured’s dwelling, barns, farm buildings, structures, and equipment, but excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading, or unloading of any motor vehicle owned or operated by, or rented or loaned, to any insured. The exclusion did not apply to bodily injury occurring on the insured premises and arising from the use of a recreational motor vehicle. The court applied the definition of motor vehicle in R.C. 4501.01(B), and found that since “recreational vehicles” were within that definition, the farmowner’s policy was a motor vehicle liability policy.

In Selander, 85 Ohio St.3d at 544, 709 N.E.2d at 1163, we cited Goettenmoeller

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

Related

State Automobile Insurance v. Pasquale
113 Ohio St. 3d 11 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007)
Marra v. Nationwide Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (1-22-2007)
2007 Ohio 356 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
State Automobile Insurance v. Pasquale
837 N.E.2d 1249 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
Johnson v. Auto Owners Ins., Unpublished Decision (1-21-2005)
2005 Ohio 237 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
Hopkins v. Dyer
820 N.E.2d 329 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2004)
Wells v. Progressive Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (12-11-2003)
2003 Ohio 6635 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2003)
White v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania
282 F. Supp. 2d 618 (N.D. Ohio, 2003)
Lepley v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
334 F.3d 544 (Sixth Circuit, 2003)
Lepley v. Hartford Accident And Indemnity Company
334 F.3d 544 (Sixth Circuit, 2003)
Hellman v. Motorists Mutual Insurance
794 N.E.2d 688 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2003)
Lawler v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
322 F.3d 900 (Third Circuit, 2003)
Lawler v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
322 F.3d 900 (Sixth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 Ohio St. 3d 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-v-motorists-mutual-insurance-ohio-2001.