The Stirizes (Jeff and Cathy) operated Deryle’s Auto Care (an auto repair shop) at location one. Location one was property owned by Mr. Stiriz’s father. Jeff and Cathy owned two pieces of property. The first was location two, which was located adjacent to location one. Location three was their residence and it was located in another part of town. Location two was covered by a commercial property policy issued by Frankenmuth Mutual. Motorist’s Mutual provided the Stirizes with coverage on locations one and three with a Commercial Property (and Garage) policy and a homeowners policy, respectively.
The area around the auto shop experienced a serious rainstorm in September 1997. An underground storage tank holding gas was at the site. Water entered the tank and caused gas to spill out and spread out along several properties. Contaminated runoff also entered the town’s sewer system. Rainwater gained access to the tank because the cap for the tank’s pipe had either been removed by vandals or knocked off by a lawn mower.
State authorities required the Stirizes to pay for damages, including the costs of remediation (cleaning spill residue, removing and replacing contaminated soil, etc.). The cleanup costs exceeded $75,000. While Frankenmuth paid its supplemental pollution clean-up policy limits of $10,000, Motorists denied the claims the Stirizes presented under both their commercial and homeowner policies. The Stirizes then sued for coverage, under both policies, and they also filed claims of bad faith as well as breach of contract. The Stirizes then filed several motions requesting summary judgment.
The trial court ruled, essentially, that Motorists owed no obligation to cover on the Homeowners policy (as that remote location did not suffer a direct loss). However, it also ruled that, under the Commercial Policy, a question of fact existed regarding coverage under the policy’s additional coverages provision. The court ordered that part of the dispute to go to trial by jury. Later, the jury ruled in favor of Motorists, finding that no coverage obligation existed.
The Stirizes filed an appeal alleging that the trial court decision included the following errors:
The higher court considered each allegation of error and, point-by-point, decided against the Stirizes. In the court’s opinion, the policy wording was not ambiguous, the involvement of a jury appeared appropriate, it was unnecessary to allow introduction of a particular definition of vehicle and a new trial was unwarranted. It also ruled that Motorists’ affirmative defenses were justified by the appellants’ actions and that no coverage question warranted a trial on any homeowners coverage. The lower court’s decision in favor of Motorists was affirmed and the Stirizes were ordered to pay the court costs for both parties.
Jeff Stiriz, et al., Appellants, v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Company, Appellee, Ohio Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District, No.F-01-010. Filed March 29, 2002. 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 1468. Affirmed. CCH Fire and Casualty Cases Paragraph 7638