Nixon v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Nixon v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 2004-Ohio-6017.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 84243 TAMI NIXON : ACCELERATED DOCKET : Plaintiff-Appellant : : : vs. : : : GRANGE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY: : Defendant-Appellee : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: JUDGMENT: DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION November 10, 2004 Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-495616 AFFIRMED _______________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: DON C. ILER 1640 Standard Building 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1746 For Defendant-Appellee: WARREN S. GEORGE LISA M. GERLACK 2 Uhlinger, Keis and George 55 Public Square Suite 800 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2079 ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J.: {¶ 1} This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calender pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc..R. 11.1, the trial court records and briefs of counsel. {¶ 2} It is well settled that the law to be applied when an accident occurs depends on the law in effect at the beginning of the most recent two-year interval. Wolfe v. Wolfe, 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 2000-Ohio-322. On September 20, 2000, R.C. 3937.18 was amended to limit recovery under an insurance policy s UM/UIM motorist coverage to circumstances in which an insured suffers bodily injury or death.1 In the case sub judice, the most recent two-year interval for the policy issued by defendant-appellee Grange Mutual Casualty Company began on January 10, 2001. The accident occurred on December 3, 2001. {¶ 3} Therefore, the law in effect at the time of the accident prohibits appellant s recovery, as she did not suffer bodily injury. The issues of timely payment, cancellation, and notice are extraneous. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee. Appellant s assignments of error are overruled. Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 3 It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 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. ______________________________ ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR. JUDGE TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, P.J., and KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR. N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1). 1 R.C. 3937.18 was amended by S.B. No. 267.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
