NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL

- TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0228n.06
Case No. 11

- 3718
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JOHN BARONE, II , Defendant

- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: DAUGHTREY, COLE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM

. Owners Insurance Company appeals a n order granting a partial motion for summary judgment in favor of John Barone, II. Barone holds a h omeowners insurance policy issued by Owners

. The policy was in place in June 2008 , when Bar one had a new Mastercraft speed boat , a wakeboard, and other accessories delivered to his Florida home. The next month, Jessica Merritt was injured while riding the wakeboard as Barone drove the boat. Merritt brought suit against Barone alleging that her injuries were attributable in part to his negligence. Shortly after that , Barone informed Owners of the new boat and o f the accident. Owners be gan defending Barone in Merritt’ s suit under a reservation of right , but the company brought its own suit asking the district court to declare that it had no duty to defend Barone underCase No. 11

- 3718

Owners Ins. Co. v. Barone

- 2

- the insurance policy. Owners and Barone fil ed cross

- motions for summary judgment. The court found that the policy entitled Barone to a defense in Merritt’s suit , and we affirm. We review a district court’ s grant of summary judgment d e novo. Tysinger v. Police Dep’t of City of Zanesville , 463 F.3 d 569, 572 (6th Cir. 2006). A motion for summary judgment should be granted if the movant demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We view the
f acts and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the non

- moving party. McKinnie v. Roadway Express, Inc. , 341 F.3d 554, 557 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Matsushita Elec. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). To establish a genuine d ispute of fact for trial , the non

moving party must point to evidence on the record upon which a reasonable finder of fact could find in its favor. Id. Under Ohio law , ambiguous contract terms are “ construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured. ” King v. Nationwide Ins. Co. , 519 N.E. 2d 1380, 1383 (Ohio 1988). The district court found the insurance policy language ambiguous with regard to whether the wakeboard was covered and therefore i nterpreted the policy in Barone’ s favo r. The court then held that Owners ha s a duty to defend Barone from all of Marritt’s claims arising out of the accident, and that Owners must indemnify Barone for any damages arising from the use and d efectiveness of the wakeboard. Because the persuasive reasoning that supports this decision has been clearly and thoroughly articulated by the district court in its opinion , a detailed written opinion fr om this

c ourt would be unnecessarily duplicative . W e affirm the Memorandum Opinion issued on June 6, 2011, on the basis of the reasoning contained therein.