Edmondson v. Premier Industrial Corp., Unpublished Decision (10-17-2002)

{¶ 28} I concur in judgment only and write separately to clarify my position on the meaning of "``you' in a covered vehicle." I believe the Ohio Supreme Court has found this language to be ambiguous in its decisions in both Headley v. Ohio Gov't Risk Mgt. Plan<sup>1</sup> and Dillardv. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.<sup>2</sup> The majority's dicta indicates thatScott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co.<sup>3</sup> does not apply when the policy language is "you for a covered ``auto.'" I disagree. However, I do agree that the policy language as written does not lend itself to include pedestrians. "You for any covered ``auto'" by its definition excludes pedestrians. There are cases where pedestrians have been included and Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mutual applied.⁴ In those cases, the policy specifically included coverage for pedestrians. Consequently, I agree with the majority to affirm on this issue only.

¹ (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 64.

² (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 316.

³ (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660.

⁴ Westfield Insurance Co. v. Galatis, 2002-Ohio-1502, Summit App. No. 20784 and White v. American Manufacturers, Mutual Insurance Co., 2002-Ohio-4125, Montgomery App. No. 19206.