Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Parrish v. Mid-American Fire Cas. Co.
Citations: 577 N.E.2d 1109; 63 Ohio App. 3d 1; 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 1739Docket: No. 6-87-11.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; May 12, 1989; Ohio; State Appellate Court
A motion to certify to the Supreme Court of Ohio was overruled in 1989. The case involves an appeal by Mid-American Fire and Casualty Company from a judgment by the Court of Common Pleas of Hardin County. On February 14, 1984, a truck owned by the village of Ada, driven by Charles L. Clemons, crashed into the home of plaintiff Bessie P. Parrish, injuring Lloyd W. Parrish. The truck was insured by West American Insurance Company, which denied coverage because Clemons was driving without express permission, rendering him uninsured. Plaintiff then sought coverage under her policy with Mid-American, which was denied based on a provision that excluded government-owned vehicles from the definition of "uninsured motor vehicle." Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment on March 3, 1987, and the trial court ruled the exclusion void as a matter of public policy. Mid-American appealed, arguing that the policy's exclusion was clear and enforceable. The insurer cited a precedent from Watters v. Dairyland Ins. Co., where a similar exclusion was deemed void for conflicting with Ohio law, specifically R.C. 3937.18, which mandates that uninsured motorist coverage should protect insured individuals from losses caused by uninsured vehicles. The Ohio Supreme Court previously emphasized that the purpose of such coverage is to ensure that injured policyholders can recover damages as if the tortfeasor had liability insurance. Consequently, the focus is on whether Clemons is covered under any automobile liability policy, regardless of the vehicle’s ownership. The statute aims to protect insured individuals from losses caused by at-fault tortfeasors who lack liability insurance, rather than focusing on the type of vehicle involved. Case law, including Ady v. West American Ins. Co. and Watson v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co., underscores that the uninsured motorist statute prioritizes the actions of drivers over the vehicles themselves, emphasizing that drivers, not vehicles, cause accidents. The statute intends to provide additional protection to insured parties in the event of an accident involving uninsured motorists. Excluding government-owned vehicles from the definition of "uninsured vehicle" contradicts the statute's purpose, as it limits required insurance coverage. Insurers cannot issue policies that provide less coverage than mandated by law, and any attempt to redefine statutory language in a way that undermines its intent is invalid. The trial court's ruling that the exclusion of government vehicles was void and unenforceable aligns with statutory policy, leading to the affirmation of the judgment.