DocketNumber: No. 2005 CA 0022.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 33
Judges: HOFFMAN, J.
Filed Date: 1/5/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 63} I agree with Judge Hoffman's reasoning and disposition as to assignments of error I, III and IV. However, I am writing separately because while I agree with Judge Hoffman's disposition as to assignment of error II, I do not agree with his analysis. The issue is whether the language "We do not provide Medical Payments Coverage for any insured for bodily injury . . . sustained while occupying any motorized vehicle having fewer than four wheels. . . ." is ambiguous, and if so, what is the proper interpretation of that language.2 Appellant's claim for medical payment coverage for payments she claimed to have made as a result of bodily injuries her husband sustained while he was on a motorcycle depends upon the interpretation of that clause. Judge Hoffman's opinion finds the clause ambiguous and then concludes that the clause does not clearly and unambiguously exclude coverage for appellant's claim. I would find that, even assuming arguendo that the clause is ambiguous, a reasonable interpretation of the clause excludes coverage for appellant's claim.
{¶ 64} Although, as a rule, a policy of insurance that is ambiguous will be construed most favorably for the insured, it must be construed so as to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the parties. Westfield Insurance Co. v. Galatis,
{¶ 65} In this case, we find that a reasonable interpretation of the language of the contract leads to the conclusion that appellant's claims for medical payment coverage are excluded by the terms of the contract. It is apparent that appellant's husband, an insured under the policy, cannot obtain medical payment coverage for the bodily injuries he sustained because those bodily injuries were sustained while he was occupying a vehicle with less than four wheels. It is not reasonable to interpret the contract so as to allow appellant, also an insured under the policy, to obtain medical payment coverage for her husband's injuries when he himself cannot. To construe the terms of the contract otherwise permits the claimant to circumvent the clear intent of the parties and the contract.
{¶ 66} Accordingly, I join in Judge Hoffman's disposition as to the second assignment of error but do so pursuant to the foregoing analysis.