NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION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 an order granting a partial motion 

for summary judgment in favor of John Barone, II. Barone holds a homeowners insurance 

policy issued by Owners. The policy was in place in June 2008, when Barone had a new 

Mastercraft speedboat, 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 of the accident. 

Owners began 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 under 
Case No. 11-3718

Owners Ins. Co. v. Barone

- 2 -

the insurance policy. Owners and Barone filed 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 de novo. Tysinger v. Police 

Dep’t of City of Zanesville, 463 F.3d 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 

facts 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 dispute of fact for trial, the nonmoving 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 interpreted the policy in Barone’s favor. The court 

then held that Owners has 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 

defectiveness 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 from this 

court would be unnecessarily duplicative. We affirm the Memorandum Opinion issued on June 

6, 2011, on the basis of the reasoning contained therein.