Estate of Dillard v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Estate of Dillard v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 86 Ohio St.3d 316, 1999-Ohio-177.] ESTATE OF DILLARD, DECEASED, APPELLANT, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Estate of Dillard v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 316.] Automobile liability insurance Uninsured motorist coverage R.C. 3937.18 Scope of coverage of employer s commercial automobile liability policy for employee killed in accident Court of appeals judgment reversed on authority of Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. and judgment of trial court reinstated. (No. 99-146 Submitted June 22, 1999 Decided September 8, 1999.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. 1998CA00161. __________________ O Meara Law Offices and Douglas J. O Meara, for appellant. Law Offices of Jan A. Saurman and John V. Rasmussen, for appellees. __________________ The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of ScottPontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. In this case, the decedent Dillard had clocked out after his shift ended and left the Canton Drop Forge plant where he worked. He was walking to his personal automobile that was parked in a lot across the street from the plant when he was struck and killed by an uninsured motorist. The Liberty Mutual Insurance Company policy issued to the decedent s employer, Canton Drop Forge, contained the identical definitions of you and your for purposes of UM/UIM coverage as did the policy in Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116. The Stark County Court of Appeals held that Dillard was not an insured under the Liberty Mutual policy because he did not fit into any of the categories of insured. The court reasoned that [i]t is undisputed that the term You , under the section defining who is an insured , in the policy issued by Liberty, refers to Canton Drop Forge. Second, we find the phrase if you are an individual, any family member unambiguous. A plain reading of this provision establishes that the provision applies only when the insured is an individual. The court noted a distinction in the definition between you and an individual. The appellate court stated that since the term you refers to corporations, which are not individuals, the provision does not extend coverage to Dillard because the named insured was not an individual. Furthermore, at the time of the accident, Dillard was not operating a covered auto. Because Dillard did not fit any of the categories of insured under the policy issued by Liberty, the court concluded that he may not be afforded coverage for injuries sustained due to an uninsured motorist. For the reasons more fully set forth in my dissenting opinion in ScottPontzer, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. COOK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
