Ezawa v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Co. of America
Cases that cite this one
187 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Szabo v. CGU International Insurance, PLC (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2002)
- Parks v. Rice (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Singleton v. Bagshaw Enterprises, Unpublished Decision (2-4-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Lawler v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (3d Cir. 2003)
- Lawler v. Fireman's Fund Insurance (6th Cir. 2003)
- Twin City Fire Insurance v. Adkins (6th Cir. 2005)
- Becki v. Fresh Mark, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- Westfield Insurance v. Galatis (Ohio 2003)
- Burt v. Harris, Unpublished Decision (2-19-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Dosier v. Travelers Property Casualty, Unpublished Decision (12-16-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Morgenstern v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance (6th Cir. 2003)
- Hofmeister v. Meter, Unpublished Decision (5-21-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Williams v. Jones, Unpublished Decision (10-12-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Blatt v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. (District Court, N.D. Ohio 2002)
- Webb v. Northbrook Property Casualty Ins, Unpublished Decision (1-15-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Lake v. Selective Ins. Co. of S. Carolina, Unpublished Decision (6-18-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Saunders v. Mortensen, Unpublished Decision (5-14-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Caperton v. Kaufman, Unpublished Decision (11-26-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Jackson v. Sok (6th Cir. 2003)
- Johnston v. Johnston (Lake County Court of Common Pleas 2001)
- Rice v. American Select, Unpublished Decision (5-23-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- Frazier v. Bee, Unpublished Decision (1-27-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- Reese v. Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Underwriter (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- Bishop v. Pacific Employers Insurance (6th Cir. 2004)
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 of the Court
The discretionary appeal is allowed.
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.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. 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.
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.
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.
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
Pandora’s Box continues to release its contents.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.