8TH DISTRICT (CUYAHOGA COUNTY) SELECTED INSURANCE CASES FROM 2008

2008 YEAR IN REVIEW - CUYAHOGA COUNTY APPELLATE COURT

*Please click on the case name for a link to view the full text of the following opinions from the Eighth District Court of Appeals:

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY V. PRAGOTRADE, INC.

Product Liability
Commercial Policy of Insurance
Products & Completed Operations Hazard Endorsement

An endorsement that excludes coverage, which is listed on Declarations Page but not included with Policy creates issues of fact for jury as to the nature and extent of coverage under the purported endorsement.


DAILY V. AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY

Uninsured Motorist Coverage
Definition of "Relative"
Definition of "Insured"
Exclusion of other persons that own a motor vehicle - Valid

When "insured" under automobile policy is defined to include resident relatives, but excludes any person who owns a motor vehicle, such terms validly exclude a resident relative that owns his/her own motor vehicle.

STIGGERS V. ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY

Commercial Insurance Coverage
Timely Notice Provisions
Purely Economic Loss
Your Work Exclusion
Your Product Exclusion
Ongoing Operations Exclusion


MASTELLONE V. LIGHTNING ROD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

BAD FAITH
Insurer's Bad Faith
Bifurcation - Basis/Foundation for allowing bifurcation of bad faith claim
R.C. 2315.21(B) - Is prospective Only and is not to be applied retroactively as a basis for bifurcation of bad faith claims against insurer.
Summary Judgment Standard on Bad Faith Claim

COVERAGE
Mold Damage
Proof that mold does not cause "physical damage" to the structure or integrity of the exterior of a building or premises. Aestetic damage only.
No coverage.


WHITE V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

BAD FAITH
Issues of fact exist as to Allstate's committing bad faith and breach of policy of insurance.

COVERAGE
Homeowner policy.
Fire Loss.

OHIO SUPREME COURT - SELECTED INSURANCE CASES FROM 2008

2008 YEAR IN REVIEW - INSURANCE CASES

* Please click on the case name in order to link to the full opinion of the Court.


LAGER V. GONZALEZ

Uninsured Motorist Coverage

There is no recognizable difference between the terms "for bodily injury" and "because of bodily injury" in a policy of uninsured motorist coverage. Under the well-settled principles of contract construction in Ohio, these phrases do not create any ambiguity upon which a reasonable interpretation would allow coverage.

The Court of Appeals decision is REVERSED.

ANGEL V. REED

Two Year Limitation on Filing Claim for Uninsured Motorist
VALID

The 2 year notification of claim provision in uninsured motorist coverage of automobile policy is valid and enforceable. The time period begins to run at the time of the accident. Although, the Court leaves open the ability to present factors that relate to when the insured knew or should have known that an uninsured motorist situation was present.

However, if the insured can merely contact tortfeasor's identified insurer (contained in accident report) to ascertain if coverage exists and/or the limits of that coverage, then the time period under the 2 year limitation period begins to run immediately.


ADVENT, EXR. V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

S.B. 97 Amendements to R.C. 3937.18 and R.C. 3937.31.

Certified Question: Can the S.B. No. 97 Amendments to R.C. 3937.18 be incorporated into an insurance policy during a two-year guarantee period that commenced subsequent to the S.B. 267 Amendments to R.C. 3937.18 and R.C. 3937.31, but prior to the S.B. No. 97 Amendments?

Answer to Certified Question: "YES."