Henderson v. Lincoln Natl. Speciality Ins. Co. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Henderson v. Lincoln National Speciality Insurance Company.
[Cite as Henderson v. Lincoln Natl. Speciality Ins. Co.
(1994), Ohio St.3d .]
Insurance -- R.C. 3937.18 applies to motor vehicle liability
insurance policy coveraging vehicles registered and
principally garaged in Ohio, even when policy was not
delivered or issued for delivery in Ohio by insurer.
(No. 93-740 -- Submitted December 8, 1993 -- Decided
February 2, 1994.)
On Order from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, Certifying a
Question of State Law, No. 3:93-CV-7036.

Boyk & McCulley, David C. McCulley and Steven L.
Crossmock, for petitioner.
Doyle, Lewis & Warner, John A. Borell and Kevin A. Pituch,
for respondent.
Scanlon & Henretta Co., L.P.A., J. Thomas Henretta and Ann
Marie O'Brien, in support of petitioner, for amicus curiae Ohio
Academy of Trial Lawyers.

The United States District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio, Western Division, has certified the following question
to us:
"Does Ohio Revised Code { 3937.18 apply to an automobile
liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance
covering vehicles registered and principally garaged in Ohio,
when said policy was not delivered, or issued for delivery in
Ohio by the insurer?"
The certified question is answered in the affirmative.
A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer,
JJ., concur.
Moyer, C.J., and Wright, J., dissent.
Moyer, C.J., dissenting. The legal issue certified to
us by the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Western Division, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R.
XVI is: "Does Ohio Revised Code { 3937.18 apply to an
automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy of

insurance covering vehicles registered or principally garaged
in Ohio, when said policy was not delivered, or issued for
delivery in Ohio by the insurer?"
The portion of R.C. 3937.18 in question provides as
follows:
"(A) No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability
policy of insurance insuring against loss resulting from
liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by
any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of
a motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in
this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or
principally garaged in this state unless both of the following
are provided ***."
Petitioner was injured in an automobile accident with an
uninsured motorist in Lucas County, Ohio. At the time of the
accident, petitioner was driving a motor vehicle owned by her
employer which was registered and principally garaged in Ohio.
Respondent provided insurance coverage to petitioner's
employer with liability coverage limits of $1,000,000 and
uninsured motorist coverage limits of $25,000. The insurance
policy was issued in Kansas and delivered to petitioner's
employer, a California corporation. A second issue, relevant
only if R.C. 3937.18(A) is found applicable to the automobile
in question, is whether petitioner is entitled to uninsured
motorist coverage under respondent's policy of insurance.
Without opinion, the majority answers the certified
question in the affirmative. There is no explanation or
attempt to construe, as ambiguous, the words of the statute
that are clear on their face. The words "shall be delivered or
issued for delivery in this state" refer to the preceding words
of the statute: "[n]o automobile liability or motor vehicle
liability policy of insurance." The words chosen by the
General Assembly manifest the clear intent of the General
Assembly that the conditions imposed in the remainder of the
statute apply to motor vehicle liability insurance policies
that are issued or delivered in Ohio. The effect of the
response of the majority is to rewrite the statute to delete
the phrase "shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this
state." While we may question the reason for such a
limitation, our role is not to change the clear intent of the
General Assembly where the Constitution has not been violated
or where the Act of the General Assembly does not violate
public policy. I would apply the rationale found in the
opinion of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Burns v. Aetna Cas. &
Sur. Co. (Tenn. 1987), 741 S.W.2d 318, a case that presented an
issue virtually identical to the issue certified to this court.
If an application of the clear words of the statute cause
unforeseen hardships, the statute is easily amended by the
General Assembly.
Wright, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.