Carlile v. Usaa Casualty Co., Unpublished Decision (1-16-2003)
Carlile v. Usaa Casualty Co., Unpublished Decision (1-16-2003)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} On August 25, 1986, Carlile was injured in an automobile accident caused by an uninsured or underinsured motorist. On June 27, 2000, Carlile filed a declaratory judgment action against USAA alleging that she, as a resident relative, was entitled to coverage under her father's homeowner's insurance policy in effect at the time of her injury.
{¶ 3} She alleged that UIM coverage arose as a matter of law because the policy provided coverage for "residence employees" injured while operating motor vehicles in the course of their employment, and that coverage transformed the policy into an "automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance" under the former version of R.C.
{¶ 4} The sole question in this appeal is whether the "residence employee" coverage in the homeowner's policy gives rise to UIM coverage as a matter of law. Because of the Ohio Supreme Court's opinion inHillyer v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co.,2 we find that it does not and overrule the assignment of error.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee shall recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J. AND TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.