Ezawa v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Am.
Cases that cite this one
82 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Edmondson v. Premier Industrial Corp., Unpublished Decision (10-17-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
- Gruelich v. the Hartford, Unpublished Decision (12-26-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
- Daniels v. Citizens Ins., Unpublished Decision (11-21-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- Blankenship v. Travelers Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (5-1-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Schaffer-Wong v. Knauf USA Poly., Unpublished Decision (3-7-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- Nies v. Chubb Ins., Unpublished Decision (4-8-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- Wilson v. Haimerl, Unpublished Decision (8-18-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Elliston v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins., Unpublished Decision (3-31-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Brown v. Travelers Insurance, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Wilson v. Haimerl, Unpublished Decision (4-7-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Sherrick v. McCoy, Unpublished Decision (12-18-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Turner v. Pontones (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)
- Clements v. Oh Hospital Ins., Unpublished Decision (4-20-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- Bernabei v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins., Unpublished Decision (2-14-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- Schaffer-Wong v. Knauf USA Poystrene, Unpublished Decision (4-5-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Baker v. Old Republic Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (5-19-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Villa v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (5-20-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Tano v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (3-17-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Jordan v. Armsway Tank Transport, Inc., Unpublished Decision (1-23-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Handel v. White, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Daniels v. Citizens Insurance Company, Unpublished Decision (1-12-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Beheshtaein v. American States Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (5-7-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Wilson v. Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (12-26-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Bowman v. Hudak, Unpublished Decision (12-11-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Congrove v. Wausau Ins. Cos., Unpublished Decision (2-18-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 86 Ohio St.3d 557.]
EZAWA, A MINOR, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. YASUDA FIRE & MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, APPELLEE. [Cite as Ezawa v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Am., 1999-Ohio-124.] Automobile liability insurance—Underinsured motorist coverage—R.C. 3937.18—
Scope of coverage of employer’s commercial automobile liability policy for employee’s child injured in an accident.
(No. 98-1686—Submitted June 22, 1999—Decided September 22, 1999.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 97APE10-1343.
__________________
Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn, Kris M. Dawley and Edwin L. Skeens, for appellants.
Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., Alexander M. Andrews and Margaret C. Bettendorf, for appellee.
__________________
{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is allowed. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents.
__________________
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. {¶ 3} I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 667, 710 N.E.2d 1116, 1121.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 4} Koichiro Ezawa, a minor, was injured in an accident while a passenger in an automobile driven by Diedre Soler. Ezawa’s damages exceeded the $250,000 per person limit of Soler’s liability insurance policy. At the time of the accident, Ezawa’s father, Fumiko Ezawa, was employed by Tomasco Mulciber, Inc. (“Tomasco”). Tomasco had a business automobile insurance policy issued by appellee Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company of America (“Yasuda”). Although Ezawa was injured by a third party who was not a Tomasco employee and was not in a vehicle covered by Tomasco’s insurance policy, Ezawa and his father, nevertheless, made an underinsured motorists (“UIM”) claim against the Yasuda policy issued to Fumiko Ezawa’s employer.
{¶ 5} The trial court granted Yasuda’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because, based on the unambiguous language in the Yasuda policy, Koichiro was not an “insured” as that term is defined in the policy. The court of appeals affirmed.
{¶ 6} The Yasuda policy was issued to a corporation. According to the language of the policy, UIM coverage extends to family members of the insured only if the named insured is an individual. Here, it is not. Yet the majority applies its convoluted reasoning in Scott-Pontzer to once again extend the reach of UIM coverage. Now a corporate policy must afford UIM coverage to an employee’s minor son who was injured by a non-employee while riding in a non-covered vehicle and whose injuries had nothing to do with the corporation’s business.
{¶ 7} Pandora’s Box continues to release its contents.
__________________
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.