Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Hyster-Yale Grp., Inc.

Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Hyster-Yale Grp., Inc.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County

December 20, 2018, Released; December 20, 2018, Journalized

No. 106937

Opinion

 [**387]  JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.:

 [*P1]  In this interlocutory appeal, defendants-appellants, Hyster-Yale Group, Inc., and its parent company, Hyster-Yale Materials Handling Corporation [***2]  (collectively referred to as "Hyster-Yale"), appeal from the order of the trial court determining that plaintiff-appellee, Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. ("Fireman's Fund"), may withdraw its defense of Hyster-Yale in asbestos lawsuits where there is indisputable, reliable evidence that the date of injury clearly occurred outside of the policy term (i.e., 1957 to 1969). Hyster-Yale assigns the following three errors for our review:

I. The trial court erred in holding that Ohio law permits [Fireman's Fund] to terminate its duty to defend based on information extrinsic to the operative complaints developed during the course of the underlying asbestos lawsuits.

II. The trial court erred in holding that Oregon law permits [Fireman's Fund] to terminate its duty to defend based on information extrinsic to the operative complaints developed during the course of the underlying asbestos lawsuits.

III. To the extent Oregon and Ohio law conflict with respect to the standard governing an insurer's duty to defend, Oregon law has the most significant relationship to the policies and its law must therefore apply.

 [*P2]  Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court granting [***3]  partial summary judgment to Fireman's Fund and denying Hyster-Yale's motion for summary judgment. The apposite facts follow.

 [*P3]  Hyster-Yale Group is a national subsidiary of Hyster-Yale Materials Handling, a Delaware company. At all relevant times, Hyster-Yale manufactured "powered industrial trucks," or forklifts. Fireman's Fund is one of Hyster-Yale's insurers, and it issued various general liability policies with policy periods from February 1, 1957, through February 1, 1969. During this time period, Hyster-Yale was headquartered in Oregon, and the policies were negotiated with an Oregon broker.

 [*P4]  In relevant part, the Fireman's Fund policies state:

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2018-Ohio-5236 *; 127 N.E.3d 385 **; 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 5543 ***; 2018 WL 6818545

FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. HYSTER-YALE GROUP, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Subsequent History: Vacated by, Substituted opinion at, On reconsideration by Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Hyster-Yale Grp., Inc., 2019-Ohio-1522, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 1628 (Ohio Ct. App., Cuyahoga County, Apr. 25, 2019)

Prior History:  [***1] Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Case No. CV-17-875690.

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

insurer, duty to defend, asbestos, coverage, policies, fraudulent, extrinsic evidence, policy period, trial court, allegations, groundless, exposure, summary judgment, lawsuits, policy coverage, no duty, insurer's duty to defend, insurance policy, assigned error, time period, headquarters, indisputable, occurrence, terminated, permits

Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Legal Entitlement, Materiality of Facts, Burdens of Proof, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Preliminary Considerations, Federal & State Interrelationships, Choice of Law, Insurance Law, Liability & Performance Standards, Good Faith & Fair Dealing, Duty to Defend