Eaton v. Cincinnati Insurance

Ohio Court of Appeals

Eaton v. Cincinnati Insurance

578 N.E.2d 873, 63 Ohio App. 3d 356, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 2319

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 1989

DocketNo. 56683.

StatusPublished

This text of 578 N.E.2d 873 (Eaton v. Cincinnati Insurance) 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

Eaton v. Cincinnati Insurance, 578 N.E.2d 873, 63 Ohio App. 3d 356, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 2319 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

*357 Per Curiam.

Plaintiff Jean Eaton lost control of her automobile and hit a guardrail after driving through oil allegedly spilled from an unidentified vehicle. It is undisputed that the two vehicles sustained no physical contact with each other. Construing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiffs Jean Eaton and her husband, the Reverend Mr. Clair G. Eaton, reasonable minds could only conclude that they failed to demonstrate the contact necessary for recovery under their uninsured motorist coverage. See State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rowe (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 143, 28 OBR 238, 502 N.E.2d 1008; Yurista v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 326, 18 OBR 370, 481 N. E.2d 584; Travelers Indemn. Co. v. Reddick (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 119, 66 O.O.2d 259, 308 N.E.2d 454. See, also, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. West (Feb. 3, 1983), Cuyahoga App. No. 44969, unreported, 1983 WL 5726; Rector v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. (May 13, 1988), Greene App. No. 88-CA-2, unreported, 1988 WL 47400. Thus, summary judgment was entered properly for the insurance company.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ assignments of error are overruled and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Ann McManamon, P.J., Dyke and J.F. Corrigan, JJ., concur.

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

*357 Per Curiam.

Plaintiff Jean Eaton lost control of her automobile and hit a guardrail after driving through oil allegedly spilled from an unidentified vehicle. It is undisputed that the two vehicles sustained no physical contact with each other. Construing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiffs Jean Eaton and her husband, the Reverend Mr. Clair G. Eaton, reasonable minds could only conclude that they failed to demonstrate the contact necessary for recovery under their uninsured motorist coverage. See State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rowe (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 143, 28 OBR 238, 502 N.E.2d 1008; Yurista v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 326, 18 OBR 370, 481 N. E.2d 584; Travelers Indemn. Co. v. Reddick (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 119, 66 O.O.2d 259, 308 N.E.2d 454. See, also, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. West (Feb. 3, 1983), Cuyahoga App. No. 44969, unreported, 1983 WL 5726; Rector v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. (May 13, 1988), Greene App. No. 88-CA-2, unreported, 1988 WL 47400. Thus, summary judgment was entered properly for the insurance company.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ assignments of error are overruled and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Ann McManamon, P.J., Dyke and J.F. Corrigan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 N.E.2d 873, 63 Ohio App. 3d 356, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 2319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eaton-v-cincinnati-insurance-ohioctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack