Title: Ezawa v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Am.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Ezawa v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Am., 86 Ohio St.3d 557, 1999-Ohio-124.] 
 
 
 
 
 
EZAWA, A MINOR, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. YASUDA FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE 
COMPANY OF AMERICA, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Ezawa v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Am. (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 
557.] 
Automobile liability insurance — Underinsured motorist coverage — R.C. 3937.18 
— Scope of coverage of employer’s commercial automobile liability policy 
for employee’s child injured in an accident. 
(No. 98-1686 — Submitted June 22, 1999 — Decided September 22, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 97APE10-1343. 
__________________ 
 
Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn, Kris M. Dawley and Edwin L. Skeens, for 
appellants. 
 
Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., Alexander M. Andrews  and Margaret C. Bettendorf, 
for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
The discretionary appeal is allowed. 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of Scott-
Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., 
concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent for the reasons 
set forth in my dissenting opinion in Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 
(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 667, 710 N.E.2d 1116, 1121. 
 
Koichiro Ezawa, a minor, was injured in an accident while a passenger in an 
 
2 
automobile driven by Diedre Soler.  Ezawa’s damages exceeded the $250,000 per 
person limit of Soler’s liability insurance policy.  At the time of the accident, 
Ezawa’s father, Fumiko Ezawa, was employed by Tomasco Mulciber, Inc. 
(“Tomasco”).  Tomasco had a business automobile insurance policy issued by 
appellee Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company of America (“Yasuda”).  
Although Ezawa was injured by a third party who was not a Tomasco employee 
and was not in a vehicle covered by Tomasco’s insurance policy, Ezawa and his 
father, nevertheless, made an underinsured motorists (“UIM”) claim against the 
Yasuda policy issued to Fumiko Ezawa’s employer. 
 
The trial court granted Yasuda’s motion for judgment on the pleadings 
because, based on the unambiguous language in the Yasuda policy, Koichiro was 
not an “insured” as that term is defined in the policy.  The court of appeals 
affirmed. 
 
The Yasuda policy was issued to a corporation.  According to the language 
of the policy, UIM coverage extends to family members of the insured only if the 
named insured is an individual.  Here, it is not.  Yet the majority applies its 
convoluted reasoning in Scott-Pontzer to once again extend the reach of UIM 
coverage.  Now a corporate policy must afford UIM coverage to an employee’s 
minor son who was injured by a non-employee while riding in a non-covered 
vehicle and whose injuries had nothing to do with the corporation’s business. 
 
Pandora’s Box continues to release its contents.