Court Opinion

ID: 9647263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:29:22.042923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:47.421961
License: Public Domain

Conley Byrd, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority view. The cases the majority relies upon, such as, Lessak v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. of N.Y., 168 Ohio St. 153, 151 N.E. 2d 730 (1958), recognize that an insurance company can limit its coverage to both the place and incidence of the hazard to the insured’s premises. At page 9 of the majority opinion the above subject case is quoted as follows, — to-wit: “. . . , and if the insurance company intended to limit the place of the accident, as well as the incidence of the hazard, to the premises of plaintiff, it could easily have so stated in the policy.” Under the policy before us the Farm Bureau Ins. Co. did limit the place of the accident and the occurrence to the appellee’s premises. Its policy provides: “1. COVERAGES Coverage A — Bodily Injury Liability. To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages [except punitive damages] because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person ... . 2. EXCLUSIONS The policy does not apply: (i) under Coverages A and B, to products hazard, which is defined as follows: 1. the handling or use of . . . goods or products manufactured, sold, handled or distributed by the named insured, if the accident occurs after the insured has relinquished possession thereof to others and away from the premises owned, rented or controlled by the insured.” Had not the term “products hazard” been defined by the policy, I would agree that the authorities cited by the majority are controlling. Here, however, the term “products hazard” is defined by the policy to exclude bodily injury arising from the “handling or use of. . . goods . . . distributed by the named insured, if the accident occurs after the insured has relinquished possession . . . and away from the premises . . . controlled by the insured.” The accident giving rise to this claim occurred both after the insured had relinquished possession and away from the insured’s premises, and I can think of no logical reason for pointing out as the majority does that an insurer can limit the place of the accident when it so states and then not applying the above stated exclusion in this policy. For the reasons stated I respectfully dissent. Fogleman and Jones, JJ., join in this dissent.