Court Opinion

ID: 9496197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:19:55.574937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:24.839021
License: Public Domain

BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
‘When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean— neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master -- that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they’re the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what / say!”
“Would you tell me, please,” said Alice, “what that means?”
Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass 186 (Penguin Books 1998) (1872).
While the plain language of the insurance contract in this ease clearly indicates that Mr. Roberts, while riding his own motorcycle outside the scope of employment, was not covered by his employer’s insurance, and a careful reading of § 3937.18(C) (1998), indicates that MacIn-tyre Chevrolet’s signed selection of UM/ UIM coverage in 1998 created a presumption that Universal had offered UM/UIM coverage in accordance with the requirements of subsection (A), neither the words of a contract nor the words of a statute mean what they say through the looking glass of the Ohio Supreme Court. That court has redefined concepts such as “interpretation” and ridden roughshod over basic legal principles such as privity of contract, and we, as a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction, are bound by its holdings on issues of state law. My concurrence in the majority’s lucid and well-constructed opinion in this judicially mangled area of law is therefore compelled.