Case ID: ohio-app-3d_158/html/0204-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lanzinger, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FLOERING, Appellants, et al. v. HUERING, Appellees, et al.
    [Cite as Floering v. Huering, 158 Ohio App.3d 204, 2004-Ohio-4142.]
    Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Wood County.
    No. WD-03-040.
    Decided Aug. 6, 2004.
    
      Steven L. Crossmock, for appellant.
    Jeanne M. Mullin and Donald J. Moracz, for appellees.
   Lanzinger, Judge.

{¶ 1} This appeal comes to us from the summary judgment granted by the Wood County Court of Common Pleas in a case involving uninsured/underinsured (“UM/UIM”) motorist coverage pursuant to Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116. Because we conclude that summary judgment is proper in this case, we affirm.

{¶2} Appellant Cynthia Floering, filed UM/UIM claims pursuant to ScottPontzer against appellee, Hamilton Mutual Insurance Company (“Hamilton”), her son’s employer’s insurer. The claims stemmed from a motor vehicle accident and resulting death of Floering’s son, Austin, a passenger in motor vehicle driven by his friend, Jordan Huering. The trial court initially found that Austin was an insured under his employer’s policy pursuant to Scott-Pontzer. Nevertheless, the court later granted summary judgment in favor of Hamilton, stating that at the time of the accident, he was not in a “covered auto” as defined under the insurance policy. Both parties filed appeals from the trial court’s judgment.

{¶ 3} Austin was riding around with friends in Huering’s van when the vehicle struck a tree at approximately 1:30 a.m. Therefore, Austin was not acting within the scope of his employer’s business when the accident related to his UM/UIM claims occurred.

{¶ 4} Pursuant to Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256, we conclude that Austin was not an insured under the Hamilton policy, negating any coverage for his UM7UIM claims. Therefore, since no material issues of fact remain in dispute and Hamilton is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Hamilton.

{¶ 5} Cynthia Floering’s sole assignment of error is not well taken. Hamilton’s cross-assignments of error are rendered moot.

{¶ 6} The judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, court costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant.

Judgment affirmed.

Pietrykowski and Singer, JJ., concur.