Ohio Appeals Court Decision Goes Against Passenger in Hit & Run Case

Uninsured Motorist Coverage Denied

In a recent 8th Appellate District case, Washington v. Geico, 2014 Ohio 4375, the Court affirmed a lower court decision. This decision denied uninsured motorist coverage to a passenger involved in a hit-and-run incident.

The case originated from a 2011 car accident. The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by an individual insured by Geico Insurance Company.

Seeking Personal Injury Damages

The plaintiff sought to recover personal injury damages through the Geico policy. Specifically, she pursued coverage under its uninsured/underinsured (“UM/UIM”) motorist provision.

Geico denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiff did not meet the contractual definition of an “insured.” The claim proceeded to common pleas court, where Geico prevailed on summary judgment. The plaintiff subsequently appealed this decision.

Misleading Policy Headings

The UM/UIM coverage section heading in question was entitled “Uninsured and Underinsured Motorists Coverage – Protection for You and Your Passengers for Injuries Caused By Uninsured and Hit-And-Run Motorists.” However, the policy's internal language stipulated that only “insureds” were eligible for coverage under the UM/UIM section.

The plaintiff conceded that she did not meet the policy's definition of an “insured.” Nevertheless, she argued that the ambiguity created by the section heading should be strictly construed against Geico, thereby entitling her to coverage.

Court Deems Headings "Directional"

The appellate court was not swayed by the plaintiff's argument. It specifically noted that the plaintiff was not a party to the contract and, therefore, lacked standing.

Specifically, it noted plaintiff was not a party to the contract and therefore lacked standing, and that the heading is not the controlling language but merely directional.

The court concluded that the heading was merely directional and not the controlling language of the policy.

Implications for Passengers

This outcome presents an unfortunate situation for the plaintiff. It contradicts the common understanding that insurance typically follows the vehicle, covering its occupants.

Theoretically, the plaintiff could have recovered under her own UM/UIM coverage if she possessed such a policy. However, she may not have been a licensed driver or had any other need for personal auto insurance.

McKenzie & Snyder handles Under-Insured Motorist and Uninsured Motorist cases, along with other injury claims, in the Greater Cincinnati and Dayton areas. Contact us for a free case evaluation.