DocketNumber: Case No. 03AP-707.
Citation Numbers: 2004 Ohio 2527
Judges: LAZARUS, P.J.
Filed Date: 5/18/2004
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} On April 30, 1999, at approximately 11:15 p.m., appellant was injured when an uninsured motorist, James M. Mayes, allegedly went left of center and struck the vehicle appellant was driving. Appellant was coming from a friend's house to drop clothes off. Based on appellant's deposition testimony, it is clear that she was not in the course and scope of her employment with Blackburn Chimney Sweep, Inc. ("Blackburn"). (Depo., of Angel Reinhart, 11, 13, 15.) Appellant was driving a vehicle registered to her father, Frederick Reinhart, who was employed by Buckeye Steel Castings, a division of Buckeye Holdings, Inc. ("Buckeye Holdings"). Appellant filed an uninsured/underinsured motorists ("UIM") claim with her father's personal insurer, United Ohio Insurance Company ("United Ohio"). Appellant also filed UIM claims based on Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. FireIns. Co. (1999),
{¶ 3} Appellant brought an action against Mayes and the various UIM carriers on April 4, 2002. The parties filed motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues involved. On June 3, 2003, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellant and against United Ohio, but denied appellant's motions for summary judgment against the remaining carriers and granted summary judgment in favor of Citzens, ACE, and National Union. This appeal followed.
{¶ 4} On appeal, appellant has assigned the following as error:
Assignment of Error No. 1:
The trial court committed reversible error when it granted summary judgment in favor of Citizens on the grounds that Angel Reinhart was not occupying a "Covered Auto" at the time of her motor vehicle accident.
Assignment of Error No. 2:
The trial court committed reversible error when it declared Angel Reinhart was not an insured under Citizens umbrella policy.
Assignment of Error No. 3:
The trial court's finding that UIM coverage was excluded pursuant to the "Anti-Stacking" provision of the ACE USA Business Auto Policy was erroneous.
Assignment of Error No. 4:
The trial court's finding that Angel Reinhart was precluded from UIM coverage under the National Union Umbrella Policy was in error.
{¶ 5} After the parties had filed their briefs in this case, the Ohio Supreme Court decided Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis,
{¶ 6} Thus, pursuant to Galatis, appellant is not entitled to coverage under her employer's business auto or umbrella policies, and she is not entitled to coverage under her father's employer's business auto and umbrella policies.
{¶ 7} In supplemental briefing, appellant argues the rule announced in Galatis should not be applied to actions presently pending in Ohio courts. We disagree.
{¶ 8} The Supreme Court of Ohio and this court have appliedGalatis retrospectively. In re Uninsured UnderinsuredMotorist Coverage Cases,
{¶ 9} Appellant's four assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Bowman and Sadler, JJ., concur.