OPINION {¶ 1} DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, FARMERS INSURANCE OF COLUMBUS, INC., APPEALS FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, DIANA K. NEAL, SEEKING UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS UNDER THE PARTIES' AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CONTRACT.
{¶ 2} IN MAY 2000, APPELLEE WAS TRAVELING WEST ON INTERSTATE 70 IN COLUMBUS, WHEN ANOTHER VEHICLE IMPACTED THE REAR OF HER VEHICLE, CAUSING HER TO SPIN OUT OF CONTROL AND RESULTING IN EXTENSIVE INJURY TO APPELLEE AND DAMAGE TO HER CAR. NO SECOND VEHICLE STOPPED AT THE SCENE, AND APPELLEE CLAIMED THAT THE ACCIDENT HAD BEEN CAUSED BY ANOTHER VEHICLE STRIKING THE REAR PORTION OF HER CAR AND DRIVING ON PAST HER AS SHE WAS SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL. SHE SOUGHT COVERAGE UNDER THE UNINSURED MOTORIST CLAUSE IN HER INSURANCE CONTRACT, WHICH PROVIDES:
PART II UNINSURED MOTORIST
COVERAGE C UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE
(INCLUDING UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE)
WE WILL PAY ALL SUMS WHICH AN INSURED PERSON IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO RECOVER AS DAMAGES FROM THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE BECAUSE OF BODILY INJURY SUSTAINED BY THE INSURED PERSON. THE BODILY INJURY MUST BE CAUSED BY ACCIDENT AND ARISE OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP, MAINTENANCE OR USE OF THE UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE.
* * *
3. UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE MEANS A MOTOR VEHICLE WHICH IS:
* * *
C) A HIT-AND-RUN VEHICLE WHOSE OPERATOR OR OWNER HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AND WHICH STRIKES:
(1) YOU OR ANY FAMILY MEMBER.
(2) A VEHICLE WHICH YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER ARE OCCUPYING.
(3) YOUR INSURED CAR.
{¶ 3} R.C. 3937.18(D)(2) ADDRESSES UNINSURED MOTORIST CLAIMS IN WHICH THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT IS ALLEGED TO BE AN UNKNOWN, HIT-AND-RUN, OR "PHANTOM" MOTORIST, AND PROVIDES, IN PART:
(D) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, A MOTOR VEHICLE SHALL BE DEEMED UNINSURED IN EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES:
* * *
(2) THE IDENTITY OF THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE CANNOT BE DETERMINED, BUT INDEPENDENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE EXISTS TO PROVE THAT THE BODILY INJURY, SICKNESS, DISEASE, OR DEATH OF THE INSURED WAS PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OR INTENTIONAL ACTIONS OF THE UNIDENTIFIED OPERATOR OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DIVISION, THE TESTIMONY OF ANY INSURED SEEKING RECOVERY FROM THE INSURER SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE INDEPENDENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, UNLESS THE TESTIMONY IS SUPPORTED BY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
{¶ 4} APPELLANT DENIED APPELLEE'S CLAIM BASED UPON ITS POSITION THAT APPELLEE FAILED TO PRODUCE SUFFICIENT INDEPENDENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING HER STATEMENT THAT THE ACCIDENT WAS PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY A VEHICLE STRIKING HER VEHICLE FROM THE REAR.
{¶ 5} IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPELLEE INTRODUCED THE DEPOSITION OF AN ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION EXPERT, LAWRENCE DuBOIS, WHO REVIEWED THE ACCIDENT REPORT, PHOTOS TAKEN BY APPELLEE OF THE CAR AND OTHER EVIDENCE, AND OPINED THAT APPELLEE'S EXPLANATION WAS, MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, AN ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF THE ACCIDENT. IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE TRIAL COURT CONSIDERED "WHETHER THE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF MR.