Short v. Central Ins. Cos.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Short v. Central Ins. Cos., 2003-Ohio-6763.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY David Short, et al. Court of Appeals No. WM-03-005 Appellants Trial Court No. 02-CI-59 v. Central Insurance Cos. DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Appellee Decided: December 5, 2003 ***** Michael A. Shaffer, for appellant. W. Charles Curley, for appellee. ***** SINGER, J. {¶1} This appeal comes to us from a summary judgment issued by the Williams County Court of Common Pleas, in a case involving uninsured/underinsured ( UM/UIM ) motorist coverage pursuant to Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Fire Ins. Co. {¶2} (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660. Because we conclude that summary judgment is proper in this case, we affirm. {¶3} Appellant, David Short, filed UM/UIM claims pursuant to Scott-Pontzer, supra, against appellee, Central Insurance Companies ( Central ) his employer s insurer. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance provider. Short appeals from that judgment. {¶4} It is undisputed that Short, employed by JBM Tool and Die Company ( JBM ), was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident related to his UM/UIM claims. Pursuant to Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, we conclude that Short was not an insured under his employer s insurance policies, negating any coverage for his UM/UIM claims from Central. Therefore, since no material issues of fact remain in dispute and Central is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Central. {¶5} Short s sole assignments of error is not well-taken. {¶6} The judgment of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Court costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ JUDGE Judith Ann Lanzinger, J. Arlene Singer, J. CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE _______________________________ JUDGE 2.
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.
