Plank-Greer v. Tannerite Sports, LLC

Citations: 102 F. Supp. 3d 954; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52175; 2015 WL 1810403Docket: Case No. 3:13CV01266

Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio; April 21, 2015; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

An insurance dispute involves plaintiff Jennifer Plank-Greer, who was injured at a party hosted by defendant James Yaney, where an explosive device was detonated inside a refrigerator. Yaney, who operates a sole proprietorship called Yaney Motorsports from his home, has insurance with Auto-Owners Insurance Company, which has intervened in the case. Plank-Greer seeks summary judgment for a finding that her injuries are covered by the insurance policy, while Auto-Owners asserts it has no duty to defend or indemnify Yaney, claiming her injuries fall outside the policy's coverage.

The court has denied Plank-Greer’s motion for summary judgment and granted Auto-Owners' motion. The background reveals that Yaney’s business, located on his residential property, provided various services including lawn care and vehicle repairs. The party, organized by Yaney and his friend Jason Vantilburg, involved guests shooting guns and culminated in the explosion of the refrigerator, which resulted in Plank-Greer’s injury from flying shrapnel. Although Yaney did not recall discussing business during the party, Plank-Greer claims he offered her services related to her vehicle. The insurance policy in question includes Garage Liability Coverage, which is central to the dispute regarding its applicability to the incident.

GLC insurance covers bodily injury and property damage under Section II, specifically Coverage A, which obligates the insurer to pay damages the insured is legally required to pay and provides a duty to defend against related lawsuits. Coverage C addresses medical payments for injuries caused by accidents on owned or rented premises, adjacent ways, or due to operations conducted by the insured. The policy identifies the insured as James Yaney, an individual who operates a sole proprietorship. 

Auto-Owners intervened in the case on January 21, 2014, followed by Plank-Greer's summary judgment motion on November 21, 2014, and Auto-Owners' response on November 24, 2014. Summary judgment is governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allowing for judgment when the opposing party fails to demonstrate the existence of an essential element for which they bear the burden of proof. The initial burden rests with the movant to show no genuine issue of material fact exists, shifting the burden to the nonmoving party to present specific facts for trial. The court accepts the nonmovant's evidence as true and construes it favorably.

Auto-Owners asserts it has no obligation to defend Yaney against Plank-Greer’s claims, arguing the insurance contract limits coverage to the conduct of the insured's business, which excludes personal activities. Plank-Greer contends that the term "conduct of a business" is ambiguous, making it a factual issue for a jury to decide if the contract applies to purely business activities. The relationship between insurer and insured is contractual, with insurance policies interpreted according to standard contract construction principles, aiming to reflect the parties' intent as expressed in the contractual language.

In Blosser v. Enderlin, the Ohio Supreme Court established that unless otherwise defined, words in an insurance contract are interpreted based on their natural and usual meanings. When contract language is unambiguous, its interpretation is a legal matter, and courts will not consider extrinsic evidence. In this case, the insurance contract explicitly states that Yaney is covered "only with respect to the conduct of a business," which limits coverage to activities solely related to the insured's business. The term "only" clearly restricts the insured's coverage, excluding activities that are mixed in nature or unrelated to the business.

Ohio courts have consistently ruled that policies stipulating coverage "only with respect to the conduct of [the insured’s] business" do not extend to conduct unless it is exclusively for business purposes. For instance, business insurance did not cover a lawsuit linked to threats made by the insured, injuries from an incident involving equipment used for both business and personal purposes, or disparaging comments unrelated to the insured's business.

The relevant inquiry is whether the insured was engaged in business at the time of the alleged injury, not the events leading up to it. In this case, Yaney's activities during a party were primarily personal, even though he discussed his business. The incident that caused the plaintiff's injury involved entertainment unrelated to Yaney's business. Therefore, as Yaney was not acting solely in connection with his business, his actions fell outside the scope of his insurance coverage, and Auto-Owners is not required to provide coverage for the allegations made by Plank-Greer.

Plank-Greer's motion for summary judgment is denied, while Auto-Owners Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment is granted. Yaney Motorsports is no longer operational. Plank-Greer references Property Owners Ins. Co. v. Cope to argue that the contract language is ambiguous, citing a case where ambiguity arose due to mixed business and personal conduct. However, the current contract explicitly states coverage is "only with respect to the conduct of a business," which eliminates ambiguity. The inclusion of "only" clarifies that coverage applies solely to business-related conduct, rendering Plank-Greer's argument unpersuasive.