Please click the heading "Ohio Insurance" above to refresh this page and see latest posts.
My photo
Cleveland, Ohio, United States
Currently an attorney and insurance industry professional. Mr. Stoll is a commercial lawyer, arbitrator and mediator who also serves as insurance coverage counsel and advisor to numerous businesses throughout the country. He is also a licensed insurance agent/broker.

January 15, 2008

Court of Appeals - UM / UIM - "Other Owned Vehicle Exclusion" - Valid


Appellant was injured while driving a car insured by appellee. Appellee issued three policies to appellant’s family, only one of which listed the vehicle involved in the accident in this case. Appellee agreed that it owed coverage, but only under the policy that listed the vehicle. Appellant claimed that coverage was owed under all three policies. The trial court found for appellee.

On appeal, the court found no error. The policies contained “other owned auto” exclusions that excluded coverage for injuries that occurred while occupying a vehicle that the insured owned that was covered under another policy. “Other owned vehicle exclusions are permitted to be included in automobile insurance policies regarding uninsured motorist coverage. In this matter, the language of the Cherokee and Cavalier policies was not ambiguous. Instead, the other owned vehicle exclusions contained in those policies specifically excluded coverage in instances where an accident occurs while an insured is operating a vehicle that she or a relative owned. The undisputed evidence is that Tiffany is an insured under the Cherokee and Cavalier policies, that she was operating the Contour at the time of the accident, and the Contour was owned by Spelich. Thus, the valid other owned vehicle exclusions in the Cherokee and Cavalier policies preclude Spelich from being eligible for uninsured motorist coverage under those policies.” Affirmed.

Spelich v. State Farm Ins. Co. (Slaby) Appeal from the court of common pleas for Summit County. 2007-Ohio-7128 (12/28/07)

Read the Case: Spelich v. State Farm Ins. Co.

No comments: