Title: Flynn v. Westfield Ins. Co.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Flynn v. Westfield Ins. Co., 117 Ohio St.3d 1213, 2008-Ohio-991.] 
 
 
 
FLYNN ET AL., CROSS-APPELLEES, v. WESTFIELD INSURANCE  
COMPANY, CROSS-APPELLANT, ET AL. 
[Cite as Flynn v. Westfield Ins. Co., 117 Ohio St.3d 1213, 2008-Ohio-991.] 
Cross-appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted. 
(No. 2006-1619 — Submitted October 10, 2007 — Decided March 13, 2008.) 
CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County,  
No. C-050909, 168 Ohio App.3d 94, 2006-Ohio-3719. 
__________________ 
{¶ 1} The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently 
accepted. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’CONNOR, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 2} I respectfully dissent.  I would hold that while driving his own 
vehicle, Kevin Flynn did not qualify as an insured under the Westfield policy for 
purposes of uninsured-/underinsured-motorist (“UM/UIM”) coverage.  Therefore, 
we should not dismiss this case as having been improvidently accepted, but we 
should reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and enter judgment in favor of 
Westfield Insurance Company. 
{¶ 3} The named insured in the Westfield policy at issue was “Lawyers 
Title of Cincinnati, Inc. DBA Griffin and Fletcher.”  Kevin Flynn was an 
employee of Lawyers Title and a partner in the Griffin-Fletcher, L.L.P., law firm.  
Therefore, the court of appeals concluded that Flynn was an insured, and because 
he was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred, 
that he must be entitled to UM/UIM coverage pursuant to Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116.  See Westfield 
Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256.  This 
cursory analysis did not consider the language of the entire policy and did not 
give effect to the intent of the parties to limit UM/UIM coverage. 
{¶ 4} The plain language of the Westfield policy denies UM/UIM 
coverage to Kevin Flynn while he is operating his own vehicle or a vehicle leased 
to him.  The policy’s declarations page is the “roadmap” of the coverage under 
the policy.  Item two, “Schedule of Coverages and Covered Autos,” identifies the 
various types of coverage selected, with a numerical symbol that designates the 
autos covered under each type of coverage and the premium paid.  There is no 
dispute that Lawyers Title purchased liability coverage for any auto.  This 
coverage protected the company from all liability claims arising from any vehicle 
driven by any employee while in the scope of employment, regardless of whether 
the employee was driving a personal or company-owned vehicle. 
{¶ 5} Item two of the declarations page further shows that Lawyers Title 
purchased uninsured-motorist coverage, but limited that coverage to selected 
vehicles designated with the numbers “2” and “8.”  Section I - Covered Autos 
described the covered-auto designation symbols.  The company purchased 
UM/UIM coverage for “owned” autos in category “2,” described as “Only those 
‘autos’ you own * * *.  This includes those ‘autos’ you acquire ownership of after 
the policy begins.”  Those autos were specifically identified in the policy’s 
“Schedule of Covered Autos You Own.”  The company initially insured nine 
company autos.  In 2001, however, the company deleted certain vehicles 
previously listed so that those vehicles could be scheduled on the individual 
personal policies of their owners. 
{¶ 6} The company also purchased UM/UIM coverage for “hired” autos 
in category “8” described as “Only those ‘autos’ you lease, hire, rent or borrow.  
This does not include any ‘auto’ you lease, hire, rent, or borrow from any of your 
January Term, 2008 
3 
‘employees’, partners (if you are a partnership), members (if you are a limited 
liability company) or members of their households.”  (Emphasis added.)   
{¶ 7} Westfield offered coverage in category “9” for vehicles identified 
as “nonowned” autos.  Lawyers Title, however, did not purchase UM/UIM 
coverage for this category, encompassing “[o]nly those ‘autos’ you do not own, 
lease, hire, rent or borrow that are used in connection with your business.  This 
includes ‘autos’ owned by your ‘employees’, partners (if you are a partnership), 
members (if you are a limited liability company), or members of their households 
but only while used in your business or your personal affairs.”  Therefore, by 
implication, Lawyers Title clearly rejected UM/UIM coverage for personally 
owned vehicles. 
{¶ 8} At the time of the February 22, 2002 accident, Kevin Flynn was 
operating his personal vehicle while on company business.  His vehicle was not 
owned by Lawyers Title and was not listed as a covered auto on the policy’s 
declarations page.  The company did not own, lease, hire, rent, or borrow Flynn’s 
vehicle.  There was no UM/UIM coverage for vehicles “owned by” an employee 
or partner “while used in” the business.  Therefore, Flynn did not qualify as an 
insured under the language of the policy, and he was not covered for purposes of 
that policy’s UM/UIM coverage. 
{¶ 9} In addition, the intent of the parties to limit UM/UIM coverage 
substantiates the plain language of the policy.  Lawyers Title office manager, 
Diane Bedinghaus, who was responsible for company insurance matters, testified 
that all employees and partners knew that they were responsible for acquiring 
insurance for their personal vehicles.  Michael Fletcher, a senior partner of 
Griffin-Fletcher, L.L.P., who was an owner of the title company, testified that 
employees and partners not provided with company vehicles knew that the 
company did not insure personal vehicles and that they were expected to purchase 
their own insurance.  Furthermore, Lawyers Title did not pay a premium for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
coverage of personal vehicles.  Consequently, I believe that the policy language, 
coupled with the intention of the parties, requires this court to conclude that Flynn 
was not entitled to UM/UIM coverage under the Westfield policy. 
{¶ 10} Finally, the fact that the named insured was a corporation does not 
mandate Scott-Pontzer coverage merely because Flynn was acting within the 
course and scope of employment when the accident occurred.  If the policy 
contains specific language to the contrary, then an insurance policy that names a 
corporation as an insured for UM/UIM coverage does not cover an employee’s 
accident, even when the employee is acting within the course and scope of 
employment.  See Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-
5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256, paragraph two of the syllabus. 
{¶ 11} Here, there is specific language to the contrary.  The policy 
provides UM/UIM coverage for only specific covered vehicles:  category 2: 
owned autos and category 8: hired autos.  These autos were identified on the 
declarations page.  Because Kevin Flynn was not driving a covered vehicle when 
the accident occurred, the Westfield policy does not provide him with UM/UIM 
coverage. 
{¶ 12} Although we have seen Scott-Pontzer cases with less frequency 
since we limited its application in Galatis, we should not ignore these remaining 
cases simply because there are fewer to decide.  Pursuant to Galatis, the specific 
language of the contract controls.  We must continue to interpret a contract by its 
language, giving effect to the intent of the parties.  The court below failed to do 
so.  Consequently, I respectfully dissent and would reverse the judgment of the 
court of appeals and enter judgment in favor of Westfield Insurance Company. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2008 
5 
Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, L.L.P., John F. McLaughlin, and Peter L. 
Ney; and Haverkamp, Brinker, Rebold & Riehl Co. and Douglas M. Morehart, for 
cross-appellees. 
 
Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, L.L.P., and J. Stephen Teetor, James H. 
Ledman, and Jessica K. Philemond, for cross-appellant. 
______________________