Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that uninsured- and underinsured-motorist coverage under former R.C. 3937.18, as amended by 1997 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 261, does not apply to vehicles designed for off-road use. Accordingly, an insurance-policy provision excluding vehicles designed mainly for use off public roads from UM/UIM coverage was valid. The court reversed the appellate judgment and held that the Pasquales could not recover under their UM claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether former R.C. 3937.18, as amended by 1997 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 261, required UM/UIM coverage for injuries caused by an off-highway motorcycle.
- Whether a policy provision excluding vehicles designed mainly for use off public roads while not on public roads from UM/UIM coverage was valid under former R.C. 3937.18.
Holdings
- UM/UIM coverage under former R.C. 3937.18, as amended by H.B. 261, does not apply to motor vehicles designed for off-road use.
- An automobile liability insurance policy may validly exclude vehicles designed for use mainly off public roads while not on public roads from UM/UIM coverage under former R.C. 3937.18 as amended by H.B. 261.
- The Pasquales were not entitled to recover UM benefits because the policies validly excluded damages caused by vehicles designed mainly for use off public roads while not on public roads.
Key quotations
“We conclude that UM coverage under R.C. 3937.18 as amended by H.B. 261 does not apply to motor vehicles designed for off-road use.” (at 13)
“For the stated reasons, we hold that an insurance policy may exclude off-road vehicles from uninsured- and underinsured-motorist coverage under former R.C. 3937.18 as amended by 1997 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 261.” (at 17)
“An insurance policy exclusion of off-road vehicles from UM coverage is valid under R.C. 3937.18 as amended by H.B. 261.” (at 17)
Factual background
Matthew Pasquale was struck and fatally injured by a motocross motorcycle operated by Robert Gersten on a dirt track created and owned by Matthew's father, Russell Pasquale. The Pasquales held personal and business automobile policies issued by State Auto that provided UM/UIM coverage. After receiving $12,500 from Gersten's liability carrier, the Pasquales submitted UM claims, which State Auto denied based on policy language excluding vehicles designed mainly for use off public roads while not on public roads.
Procedural history
State Auto filed a declaratory-judgment action after denying the Pasquales' UM claims arising from a fatal motocross-bike accident. The Lake County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment to State Auto and denied the Pasquales' cross-motion. The Lake County Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the policy's off-road-vehicle exclusion was invalid under former R.C. 3937.18. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the appellate judgment.