Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

Exclusion for operator in violation of his driving conditions was held enforceable.

October 1, 2018
Founders Ins. Co. v. Gurung, 2017-Ohio-8983 (December 13, 2017)

The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, finding that a driver operating a vehicle with a temporary permit, but no licensed driver in the vehicle, was not entitled to insurance coverage under the policy. This case involved a declaratory judgment action filed by the insurer which sought a determination that its “valid driver’s license” provision for a driver operating a vehicle under a learner’s permit, without a licensed operator in the vehicle, was enforceable. The policy contained a provision stating, “‘valid driver’s license’ no coverage is afforded under any part of this policy if, at any time of the accident, your insured car or temporary substitute car is being operated by a person who . . . is in violation of any conditions of their driving privileges.” The vehicle was being operated by a driver who had a temporary permit. He had passengers in the vehicle, none of whom had a valid driver’s license. Ohio law requires a person with a learner’s permit to have a licensed driver seated in the front seat next to the driver while the vehicle is being operated by the learner. The insured argued that the driving privileges provision was not enforceable since he was not cited for any violation of his learner’s permit and did not have an opportunity to argue the issue in a criminal or traffic court proceeding. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, finding that the driver had admitted that there was no licensed driver in the vehicle and he was operating the vehicle in violation of his driving privileges. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, finding that no coverage existed. The case is most notable for a very thorough discussion of the law on interpretation of insurance contracts in Ohio and a review of Ohio Supreme Court precedent on these issues. A discretionary appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court was not allowed. 



Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2018

Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2018 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Affiliated Attorney

David J. Fagnilli
(216) 912-3792

Practice Areas

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."