Case Title: Estate of Nord v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co.

Citation: 2005-Ohio-2165

Docket Number: 20040136

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-05-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Estate of Nord v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 105 Ohio St.3d 366, 2005-Ohio-2165.] 
 
 
 
ESTATE OF NORD ET AL., APPELLEES, v. MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE 
COMPANY, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as Estate of Nord v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 105 Ohio St.3d 366, 2005-
Ohio-2165.] 
Insurance — Uninsured-motorist provision — An uninsured-motorist provision of 
an automobile-insurance contract that limits coverage to damages arising 
from ownership, maintenance, or use of the uninsured vehicle does not 
cover damages caused by an event unrelated to that ownership, 
maintenance, or use. 
(No. 2004-0136 — Submitted February 15, 2005 — Decided May 18, 2005.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 82857, 2003-Ohio-
6345. 
_______________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
An uninsured-motorist provision, which limits coverage to damages that “arise out 
of the ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured motor vehicle,” does 
not cover damages caused by an event unrelated to the ownership, 
maintenance, or use of an uninsured motor vehicle. 
__________________ 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
While 
a 
Cleveland 
emergency-medical-service 
ambulance 
transported Paul Nord to a hospital, a paramedic accidentally dropped a syringe, 
which struck Nord’s eye. Nord later died from unrelated causes. Nord was insured 
under an automobile policy issued by defendant-appellant, Motorists Mutual 
Insurance Company. Plaintiffs-appellees, Margaret Nord and the estate of Paul 
Nord, filed a complaint against appellant alleging that the uninsured-motorist 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
coverage applied.1 The issue presented in this appeal is whether the uninsured-
motorist provision in the automobile-insurance contract, which limits coverage to 
bodily injuries caused by accidents that “arise out of the ownership, maintenance or 
use of the uninsured motor vehicle,” covers damages resulting from an accidental 
injury occurring within a motor vehicle where the ownership, maintenance, or use 
of the vehicle is not the cause of the injury. 
{¶2} 
The trial court found that the injury was not caused by the 
ambulance and granted appellant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of 
Appeals for the Eighth District reversed the judgment and remanded the cause. The 
Eighth District held that reasonable minds could conclude that Nord’s injuries arose 
out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the ambulance. 
{¶3} 
This cause is now before this court upon the acceptance of a 
discretionary appeal. 
{¶4} 
In its sole proposition of law, appellant contends that damages arise 
out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured motor vehicle only when 
the uninsured motor vehicle was an active instrumentality in causing the injury, the 
chain of events resulting in the accident was not broken by the intervention of any 
event unrelated to the use of the uninsured vehicle, and the uninsured vehicle was 
used for transportation purposes when the accident occurred. Though we decline to 
adopt this tripartite test, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. 
{¶5} 
The relevant language of the uninsured-motorist provision in the 
Motorists policy states:  
{¶6} 
“A. We will pay compensatory damages which an insured is legally 
entitled to recover from the owner or operator of: 
                                                          
 
1. The city of Cleveland owned and operated the ambulance and, pursuant to R.C. 2744.02, 
is not liable in damages. R.C. 3937.18(B)(5) provides that operators of vehicles that have immunity 
under R.C. Chapter 2744 are included in the definition of “uninsured motorist.” Thus, at the time of 
the accident, the ambulance was an uninsured motor vehicle.  
 
January Term, 2005 
3 
{¶7} 
“1. An insured motor vehicle as defined in Section 1., 2., and 4. of 
the definition of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury: 
{¶8} 
“a. Sustained by an insured; and 
{¶9} 
“b. Caused by an accident. 
{¶10} “2. An uninsured motor vehicle as defined in Section 3. of the 
definition of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury sustained by an 
insured. 
{¶11} “The owner’s or operator’s liability for these damages must arise out 
of the ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured motor vehicle.” (Boldface 
omitted.) 
{¶12} Where an automobile policy limits uninsured-motorist coverage to 
damages from accidents that “arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of 
the uninsured motor vehicle,” coverage applies only when an uninsured motor 
vehicle caused the accident. Kish v. Cent. Natl. Ins. Group of Omaha (1981), 67 
Ohio St.2d 41, 50, 21 O.O.3d 26, 424 N.E.2d 288. In Kish, the decedent exited his 
vehicle after it had been struck. The decedent was then shot and killed by the 
other driver, an uninsured motorist. Rejecting but-for analysis, we concluded that 
uninsured-motorist coverage did not apply because the automobile accident did 
not cause the bodily injury. Though the accident began an altercation that led to a 
murder, the criminal act was an intervening cause unrelated to the use or 
operation of the uninsured vehicle. Id. at 50, 21 O.O.3d 26, 424 N.E.2d 288. 
Similarly, in Lattanzi v. Travelers Ins. Co. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 350, 353, 650 
N.E.2d 430, a traffic accident initiated a series of events that resulted in the rape 
of one of the drivers. Uninsured-motorist coverage did not apply because the 
uninsured vehicle did not cause the injury. Id. 
{¶13} The fact that Kish and Lattanzi involved intentional criminal acts is 
not significant. The determinative factor in those cases was the absence of a 
causal nexus between the injury and the uninsured motor vehicle. Thus, we 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
conclude that an uninsured-motorist provision, which limits coverage to damages 
that “arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured motor 
vehicle,” does not cover damages caused by an event unrelated to the ownership, 
maintenance, or use of an uninsured motor vehicle. 
{¶14} In the instant case, the carelessness of the paramedic caused Nord’s 
injury. The paramedic’s use and dropping of the syringe were unrelated to the 
ownership, maintenance, or use of the motor vehicle. Appellees have not alleged a 
causal link between the ambulance and the injury-causing accident, nor have they 
presented evidence that the ambulance was negligently operated or that the 
movement of the ambulance effected the injury-causing accident. Instead, appellees 
emphasize that ambulances are equipped with syringes, and they maintain that 
uninsured-motorist coverage arises because the situs of the accident was an 
uninsured motor vehicle. An accident, however, does not arise out of the 
ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured motor vehicle merely because it 
fortuitously occurs within an uninsured motor vehicle. If we were to so conclude, 
we would supplant the causation requirement, which the words of the policy 
demand, with a much broader factual-connectedness requirement, rejected in Kish, 
67 Ohio St.2d at 50, 21 O.O.3d 26, 424 N.E.2d 288. Accordingly, we hold that 
reasonable minds cannot conclude that Nord’s injury arose out of the ownership, 
maintenance, or use of the ambulance. The trial court properly granted summary 
judgment for appellant. 
{¶15} For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the court of 
appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court. 
Judgment reversed. 
 
RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL and 
LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Henry F. DeBaggis and Donald M. Levy, for appellee. 
January Term, 2005 
5 
 
Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman, Timothy J. Fitzgerald, Mark A. Greer, 
and Theresa A. Richthammer, for appellant.