Grange motion in Ohio

2022They argue Lori’s negligent distraction caused Athena’s negligent operation, causing the deaths of Sara Riggs and Dusty Wallace and the injuries to Kody McGrath. {¶12} We find Appellants apply too narrow a definition of the phrase “arising out of” to include only “originating from.” In finding an auto exclusion similar to the one in the instant case barred coverage for a negligent supervision claim where the bodily injury was caused by the operation of a motor vehicle, the Second District Court of Appeals concluded the phrase “arising out of” was unambiguous, as “arise” means “[‘t]o originate;

2022They argue Lori’s negligent distraction caused Athena’s negligent operation, causing the deaths of Sara Riggs and Dusty Wallace and the injuries to Kody McGrath. {¶12} We find Appellants apply too narrow a definition of the phrase “arising out of” to include only “originating from.” In finding an auto exclusion similar to the one in the instant case barred coverage for a negligent supervision claim where the bodily injury was caused by the operation of a motor vehicle, the Second District Court of Appeals concluded the phrase “arising out of” was unambiguous, as “arise” means “[‘t]o originate;

2013Pons at id. {¶22} I do not think that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Zito and Grange’s motion to stay.

2013Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Wuerth, 122 Ohio St.3d 594 , 2009-Ohio-3601, ¶ 20 . {¶ 36} Despite Grange's claim that, for insurance coverage purposes, the intentional conduct of Vaughan should be imputed to his employer, WHC, it has been determined that "[o]ne of the most common situations in which courts have found coverage for vicarious liabilities is where an employer is held liable for the intentional No. 13AP-290 12 injuries or damage(s) caused by one of its employees under the theory of respondeat superior." French, Debunking the Myth that Insurance Coverage is Not Available or Allowed for In

2013Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Wuerth, 122 Ohio St.3d 594 , 2009-Ohio-3601, ¶ 20 . {¶ 36} Despite Grange's claim that, for insurance coverage purposes, the intentional conduct of Vaughan should be imputed to his employer, WHC, it has been determined that "[o]ne of the most common situations in which courts have found coverage for vicarious liabilities is where an employer is held liable for the intentional No. 13AP-290 12 injuries or damage(s) caused by one of its employees under the theory of respondeat superior." French, Debunking the Myth that Insurance Coverage is Not Available or Allowed for In

2011Therefore, we must overrule Grange’s first assignment of error. {¶ 27} Grange’s second assignment of error provides as follows: “In the alternative, assuming * * * the settlement * * * preserved Grange’s subrogation rights, the trial court violated due process and erred as a matter of law by: 1) sua sponte dismissing Grange’s claim against defendant Marcy with prejudice after substituting Grange for plaintiff Jesenovec as the real-party-in-interest against Marcy; and 2) by not entering judgment against Marcy in the full amount of Grange’s subrogated interest.” {¶ 28} The Ohio Supreme Court has

2011Therefore, we must overrule Grange’s first assignment of error. {¶ 27} Grange’s second assignment of error provides as follows: “In the alternative, assuming * * * the settlement * * * preserved Grange’s subrogation rights, the trial court violated due process and erred as a matter of law by: 1) sua sponte dismissing Grange’s claim against defendant Marcy with prejudice after substituting Grange for plaintiff Jesenovec as the real-party-in-interest against Marcy; and 2) by not entering judgment against Marcy in the full amount of Grange’s subrogated interest.” {¶ 28} The Ohio Supreme Court has

2008Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327 , 4 O.O.3d 466 , 364 N.E.2d 267 .

2008Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327 , 4 O.O.3d 466 , 364 N.E.2d 267 .

2005"Abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . {¶ 12} After reviewing the record, we do not find an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying Grange's motion for a mistrial.

2005"Abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . {¶ 12} After reviewing the record, we do not find an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying Grange's motion for a mistrial.

2003Group (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 541 , 544 which held "[w]here motor vehicle liability coverage is provided, even in limited form, uninsured/underinsured coverage must be provided." In granting Grange's motion for summary judgment, the trial court held that, as a matter of law, the insurance policy is not a motor vehicle liability insurance policy under either the pre or post H.B. 261 version of R.C. 3937.18 . {¶ 11} R.C. 3937.18 pertains to the mandatory offering of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage.

2002Corp. v. Judd (1966), 400 S.W.2d 685 , 687 , the Kentucky appellate court found that, so long as the automobile could be put in substantially good physical condition as it was before the accident, the insurer's obligation was to pay the amount reasonably required for that purpose and no more.