Opinion ID: 6325956
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Only the umbrella policy is under review

Text: {¶ 74} As the procedural history of this case makes clear, the applicability of the CGL policy is not before this court. The court of appeals held that “Ironics is not entitled to coverage under the CGL policy.” 2020-Ohio-137, 151 N.E.3d 1001, ¶ 29. That portion of its judgment favored Motorists Mutual. Naturally, Motorists Mutual did not ask this court to review that holding. Neither did Ironics. Ironics could have filed a cross-appeal challenging the court of appeals’ decision as to the CGL policy. S.Ct.Prac.R. 6.01(C). But it chose not to. {¶ 75} The parties’ briefing confirms their understanding that the CGL policy is not before this court. In its memorandum opposing jurisdiction, Ironics endorsed the reasoning of the court of appeals, stating that it was “entirely consistent with well-established insurance law” to confer broader coverage under an umbrella policy than under a CGL policy. The CGL policy is referenced only tangentially in the merits briefing—and only for purposes of comparison or contrast with the umbrella policy. Nor did the CGL policy feature in the oral argument. {¶ 76} Even though the CGL policy’s application was not presented as a live issue before this court, the partial dissent would find insurance coverage under the CGL policy. It reasons that Motorists Mutual has “standing” to challenge the court’s judgment on that issue. But standing is largely beside the point. The problem here is one of presentation. Uncapher v. Baltimore & Ohio RR. Co., 127 Ohio St. 351, 356, 188 N.E. 553 (1933) (“notwithstanding the assignments contained in the petition in error[,] [e]rrors not treated in the brief will be regarded 34 January Term, 2022 as having been abandoned by the party who gave them birth”). The partial dissent answers a question that no one has asked: neither party sought reversal of the court of appeals’ decision that the CGL policy did not provide coverage. The partial dissent is an advisory opinion on an issue that is not in front of us.