KREINER (2000), 88 OHIO ST.3d 358
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN SIMPLY ACCEPTING THE INSURER'S FORM WITH THE TYPED DATE OF AUGUST 1, 1998, AS A VALID OFFER AND REJECTION, APPLYING THE LITERAL WORDS OF THE AMENDMENTS TO R.C. 3937.18 IN H.B. 261, AND REJECTING, WITHOUT DISCUSSION, THE ESTABLISHED COMMON LAW OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT AS TO A VALID OFFER AND REJECTION OF UIM BENEFITS AND THE TIMELINESS OF THE SAME, WITH RESPECT TO THE UMBRELLA POLICY AND/OR BECAUSE ANY PRESUMPTION OF A VALID OFFER OF BENEFITS UNDER R.C. 3937.18(A) WAS REBUTTED
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN HOLDING THE INSURER'S FORM WITH THE TYPED DATE OF AUGUST 1, 1998 SATISFIED ITS BURDEN TO SHOW A VALID OFFER AND REJECTION WHERE THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THAT THE FORM WAS NOT USED FOR ALL INSUREDS UNDER THE UMBRELLA POLICY AS REQUIRED BY R.C. 3937.18(C), BUT SELECTIVE BENEFITS WERE PROVIDED TO SOME INSUREDS AND NOT OTHERS, INVALIDATING THE FORM AS A PROPER REJECTION OF UIM BENEFITS
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN NOT FOLLOWING THE MAXIM OF CONSTRUCTION FOR AN INSURANCE POLICY THAT AN AMBIGUITY IN LANGUAGE MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF COVERAGE FOR INSUREDS
ALTERNATIVELY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN NOT FINDING THAT, AT A MINIMUM, UIM BENEFITS OF $100,000 EACH FOR LISA AND DENNIS PURVIS, LESS THE SET OFF OF $25,000, BECAUSE THE COVERAGE OF $100,000 IN THE AUTOMOBILE POLICY WAS UNAMBIGUOUS AS TO WHETHER IT APPLIED PER ACCIDENT OR PER PERSON
ALTERNATIVELY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW, IN NOT FINDING THAT AT A MINIMUM, LISA AND DENNIS PURVIS WERE ENTITLED TO UIM BENEFITS OF $50,000, NAMELY, $100,000 LESS THE $50,000 SET OFF FOR THE SETTLEMENT WITH THE TORTFEASOR'S INSURER
ALTERNATIVELY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INSURER'S CLAIM THAT UIM BENEFITS COULD BE DENIED UNDER R.C. 3937.18(C) WITHOUT RULING THAT THE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS VIOLATIVE OF THE OHIO AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, DUE PROCESS, RIGHT TO A REMEDY, AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
Essentially, the Purvises challenge the trial court's awarding summary judgment in favor of CIC and against them. Accordingly, we address their assignments of error together.
We review the appropriateness of summary judgment de novo. Koos v.Cent. Ohio Cellular, Inc. (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 579, 588."Pursuant to Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is appropriate when (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party, said party being entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor."Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 369-70 (internal citations omitted). Under Civ.R. 56(C), the moving party bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record