Preview
Motion No. 5118655
NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Court of Common Pleas
MOTION FOR...
September 20,2023 08:40
By: PATRICK M. ROCHE 0071359
Confirmation Nbr. 2968314
ANAL. ROMERO CV 23 978672
vs.
Judge: SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD
EMILY OQUENDO-MALDONADO, ET AL
Pages Filed: 10
Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
ANA L. ROMERO, ) CASE NO. CV 23 978672
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND
) SAFFOLD
v. )
) STATE FARM'S MOTION FOR
EMILY OQUENDO-MALDONADO, et ) LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER,
al., ) WITH COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS
) CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY
Defendants. ) JUDGMENT
Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) moves the
court for leave to file an Amended Answer to the Complaint, with a Counterclaim and Cross-Claim
for Declaratory Judgment. A brief in support of this motion, and the proposed Amended Answer, are
attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Patrick/M. Roche/________
PATRICK M. ROCHE (0071359)
Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, LLC
875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500
Cleveland, Ohio 44145
Direct: (440) 438-3011
Office: (216) 916-7730 / Fax: (216) 916-7725
Email: pmroche@cruglaw.com
Attorney for Defendant State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company
Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH
Brief in Support
This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident, in which plaintiff Ana Romera allegedly was
injured. Plaintiff is suing the other driver (Emily Oquendo-Maldonado), vehicle owner (Alberto
Figueroa), and State Farm (their alleged insurer). Plaintiff seeks medical payments coverage from
State Farm, along with a declaratory judgment concerning coverage for the other defendants.
Revised Code § 2721.02(B) expressly prohibits a tort plaintiff from suing a defendant’s liability
insurer for a declaratory judgment before obtaining a judgment against the insured tortfeasor, but
State Farm agrees that a declaratory judgment is needed. State Farm does not insure the accident
vehicle, and does not provide liability, uninsured motorist, or medical payments coverage for the
accident. State Farm therefore seeks leave to file an Amended Answer, in order to assert a claim for
declaratory judgment concerning coverage for plaintiff and the co-defendants.
In Hoover v. Sumlin, 12 Ohio St.3d 3, 5-6 (1984), the Ohio Supreme Court held that:
A party may appropriately raise an affirmative defense in an amended
pleading. Civ. R. 15(A) states that leave of court shall be ‘freely given’ as
justice requires. Although the grant or denial of such leave is within the
sound discretion of the trial court, there the defense is tendered timely and in
good faith, and no reason is apparent or disclosed for denying leave, the
denial of leave to file such an amended pleading ... is an abuse of discretion.
The same principles apply with equal force to amendment of State Farm’s Answer.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Patrick/M. Roche/________
PATRICK M. ROCHE (0071359)
Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, LLC
875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500
Cleveland, Ohio 44145
Direct: (440) 438-3011
Office: (216) 916-7730 / Fax: (216) 916-7725
Email: pmroche@cruglaw.com
Attorney for Defendant State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company
2
Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 20, 2023 a copy of the foregoing was electronically
submitted to the Clerk of Courts to be filed in this action. Notice of this filing will be sent to all
registered parties of record by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access
this filing through the Court's system.
/s/ Patrick/M. Roche/________
PATRICK M. ROCHE (0071359)
Collins Roche Utley & Garner, LLC
Attorney for Defendant, State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company
3
Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
ANA L. ROMERO, ) CASE NO. CV 23 978672
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND
) SAFFOLD
v. )
) DEFENDANT STATE FARM'S
EMILY OQUENDO-MALDONADO, et ) AMENDED ANSWER TO THE
al., ) COMPLAINT, WITH COUNTERCLAIM
) AND CROSS-CLAIM FOR
Defendants. ) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
)
[Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon]
)
Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) states as
follows for its Answer to the Complaint:
First Defense
1. State Farm admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1.
2. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.
3. State Farm denies for want of knowledge the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.
4. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4.
5. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.
6. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6.
7. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7.
8. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8.
9. State Farm restates the admissions and denials set forth above. In addition, State
Farm admits that it issued a policy of auto insurance to Alberto Figueroa, identified as Policy No.
Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH
C31 1002-B08-35, which is subject to all of its terms, conditions, and exclusions. State Farm
admits that it has a copy of the policy, but denies that the policy covers plaintiff's claim. State
Farm denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9.
10. State Farm admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 10.
11. State Farm admits that the policy was issued to Alberto Figueroa in Cuyahoga
County. State Farm denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 11.
12. State Farm denies for want of knowledge the allegations contained in Paragraph 12.
13. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13.
14. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14.
15. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 15.
16. State Farm admits that it has properly denied coverage for all claims arising from
the subject accident. State Farm denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 16.
17. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17.
18. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18.
19. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19.
Second Defense
20. The liability coverage in State Farm’s policy applies only to certain claims
involving the use of “your car,” a “newly acquired car,” a “trailer,” a “non-owned car,” or a
“temporary substitute car,” as defined in State Farm’s policy (collectively “covered auto”).
21. The subj ect accident did not involve use of a covered auto.
22. Consequently, State Farm’s liability coverage does not apply.
Third Defense
23. Plaintiff is only an “insured” under State Farm’s policy for medical payments
Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH
2
coverage if she was occupying a covered auto at the time of the accident.
24. Plaintiff was not occupying a covered auto at the time of the subject accident.
25. Consequently, State Farm's policy does not provide medical payments coverage
for plaintiff.
Fourth Defense
26. State Farm reserves the right to rely on any and all other applicable terms,
conditions, and exclusions in the policy.
Affirmative Defenses
1. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that the Complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
2. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiffs action was not timely
commenced and thus is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
3. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that the Complaint should be dismissed
due to improper venue.
4. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiff failed to join necessary and
indispensable parties.
5. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiffs Complaint fails for
insufficiency of service.
6. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiffs Complaint fails for
insufficiency of service of process.
7. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiff was comparatively
negligent, proximately causing her own injuries.
Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH
3
8. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiffs non-economic damages,
if any, are limited pursuant to R.C. 2315.18.
9. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiffs non-economic damages
must be reduced due to Plaintiffs non-use of a seatbelt.
10. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that the punitive claim must be bifurcated
from the compensatory claim.
11. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiffs claim for punitive
damages, if any, is limited pursuant to statute.
12. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that liability, if any, must be
apportioned among all liable parties and non-parties from whom Plaintiff is not seeking recovery
pursuant to RC 2307.23 and all related statutes.
13. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiff is not the real party in
interest as to some or all of Plaintiffs alleged damages.
14. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that it is entitled to contribution and
indemnity from all other tortfeasors, consistent with Ohio Revised Code §2307.025 and Ohio
Revised Code §2305.31 and incorporate the statutory language as a defense.
15. Defendant State Farm reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as
they become known during discovery.
WHEREFORE, State Farm demands that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice at
plaintiffs costs, and such other or further relief as may be just and proper.
Counterclaim and Cross-Claim for Declaratory Judgment
State Farm states as follows for its Counterclaim against plaintiff and Cross-Claim against
defendants Emily Oquendo-Maldonado and Alberto Figueroa:
Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH
4
1. State Farm is an insurance company, which issued a policy of auto insurance to
defendant Alberto Figueroa (“Figueroa”), a certified copy of which is attached hereto.
2. State Farm's policy insured a 2018 Honda Civic, and identifies lessor Honda
Financial Services as additional insured.
3. At the time of the accident here at issue, defendant Emily Oquendo-Maldonado
(“Emily”) was driving a 2021 Honda HR-V, in which plaintiff was a passenger.
4. State Farm's policy defines “insured” for liability coverage in pertinent part as
follows:
4. any other person who is not insured for vehicle liability
coverage by any other insurance policy, a self-insurance
program, or a liability bond for his or her use of:
a. your car;
b. a newly acquired car;
c. a temporary substitute car; or
d. a trailer while attached to a car described in a., b., or
c. above.
Such vehicle must be used within the scope ofyour consent;
5. The medical payments coverage in State Farm's policy defines “insured” in
pertinent part as follows:
2. any other person while occupying:
a. your car;
b. a newly acquired car;
c. a temporary substitute car; or
d. a trailer while attached to a car described in a., b., or
c. above.
Such vehicle must be used within the scope ofyour consent.
Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH
5
6. State Farm's policy defines “insured” for uninsured motorist coverage in pertinent
part as follows:
Insured means:
1. you;
2. resident relatives;
3. any other person who is not insured for uninsured motor
vehicle coverage under another vehicle policy while
occupying:
a. your car;
b. a newly acquired car; or
c. a temporary substitute car.
Such vehicle must be used within the scope ofyour consent.
Such other person occupying a vehicle used to carry persons
for a charge is not an insured;
7. The Honda HR-V that Emily as driving at the time of the subject accident does not
meet the policy's definition of “your car,” “newly acquired car,” “temporary substitute car,” or
“trailer.”
8. Figueroa and Emily do not meet the definition of “insured” for liability coverage.
9. Plaintiff and Emily do not meet the definition of “insured” for medical payments
coverage.
10. Plaintiff does not meet the definition of “insured” for medical payments or
uninsured motorist coverage.
11. State Farm therefore has no duty to defend or indemnify Figueroa and Emily as to
plaintiffs claim; no duty to provide medical payments coverage to plaintiff or Emily; and no duty
to provide uninsured motorist coverage to plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, State Farm demands a declaratory judgment as set forth above, and such
Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH
6
other or further relief as may be just and proper.
Jury Demand
State Farm hereby demands a trial by jury.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Patrick/M. RocHe
PATRICK M. ROCHE (0071359)
Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, LLC
875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500
Cleveland, Ohio 44145
Direct: (440) 438-3011
Office: (216) 916-7730 / Fax: (216) 916-7725
Email: pmroche@cruglaw.com
Attorney for Defendant State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 20, 2023, the foregoing document was filed
electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic
filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.
/s/ Patrick/M. RocHe
PATRICK M. ROCHE (0071359)
Collins Roche Utley & Garner, LLC
Attorney for Defendant State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company
Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH
7
Preview
Motion No. 5118655 NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas MOTION FOR... September 20,2023 08:40 By: PATRICK M. ROCHE 0071359 Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 ANAL. ROMERO CV 23 978672 vs. Judge: SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD EMILY OQUENDO-MALDONADO, ET AL Pages Filed: 10 Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO ANA L. ROMERO, ) CASE NO. CV 23 978672 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND ) SAFFOLD v. ) ) STATE FARM'S MOTION FOR EMILY OQUENDO-MALDONADO, et ) LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER, al., ) WITH COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS ) CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY Defendants. ) JUDGMENT Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) moves the court for leave to file an Amended Answer to the Complaint, with a Counterclaim and Cross-Claim for Declaratory Judgment. A brief in support of this motion, and the proposed Amended Answer, are attached hereto. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Patrick/M. Roche/________ PATRICK M. ROCHE (0071359) Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, LLC 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500 Cleveland, Ohio 44145 Direct: (440) 438-3011 Office: (216) 916-7730 / Fax: (216) 916-7725 Email: pmroche@cruglaw.com Attorney for Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH Brief in Support This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident, in which plaintiff Ana Romera allegedly was injured. Plaintiff is suing the other driver (Emily Oquendo-Maldonado), vehicle owner (Alberto Figueroa), and State Farm (their alleged insurer). Plaintiff seeks medical payments coverage from State Farm, along with a declaratory judgment concerning coverage for the other defendants. Revised Code § 2721.02(B) expressly prohibits a tort plaintiff from suing a defendant’s liability insurer for a declaratory judgment before obtaining a judgment against the insured tortfeasor, but State Farm agrees that a declaratory judgment is needed. State Farm does not insure the accident vehicle, and does not provide liability, uninsured motorist, or medical payments coverage for the accident. State Farm therefore seeks leave to file an Amended Answer, in order to assert a claim for declaratory judgment concerning coverage for plaintiff and the co-defendants. In Hoover v. Sumlin, 12 Ohio St.3d 3, 5-6 (1984), the Ohio Supreme Court held that: A party may appropriately raise an affirmative defense in an amended pleading. Civ. R. 15(A) states that leave of court shall be ‘freely given’ as justice requires. Although the grant or denial of such leave is within the sound discretion of the trial court, there the defense is tendered timely and in good faith, and no reason is apparent or disclosed for denying leave, the denial of leave to file such an amended pleading ... is an abuse of discretion. The same principles apply with equal force to amendment of State Farm’s Answer. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Patrick/M. Roche/________ PATRICK M. ROCHE (0071359) Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, LLC 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500 Cleveland, Ohio 44145 Direct: (440) 438-3011 Office: (216) 916-7730 / Fax: (216) 916-7725 Email: pmroche@cruglaw.com Attorney for Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 2 Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 20, 2023 a copy of the foregoing was electronically submitted to the Clerk of Courts to be filed in this action. Notice of this filing will be sent to all registered parties of record by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system. /s/ Patrick/M. Roche/________ PATRICK M. ROCHE (0071359) Collins Roche Utley & Garner, LLC Attorney for Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 3 Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO ANA L. ROMERO, ) CASE NO. CV 23 978672 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND ) SAFFOLD v. ) ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM'S EMILY OQUENDO-MALDONADO, et ) AMENDED ANSWER TO THE al., ) COMPLAINT, WITH COUNTERCLAIM ) AND CROSS-CLAIM FOR Defendants. ) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ) [Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon] ) Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) states as follows for its Answer to the Complaint: First Defense 1. State Farm admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1. 2. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 2. 3. State Farm denies for want of knowledge the allegations contained in Paragraph 3. 4. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4. 5. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5. 6. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. 7. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. 8. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8. 9. State Farm restates the admissions and denials set forth above. In addition, State Farm admits that it issued a policy of auto insurance to Alberto Figueroa, identified as Policy No. Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH C31 1002-B08-35, which is subject to all of its terms, conditions, and exclusions. State Farm admits that it has a copy of the policy, but denies that the policy covers plaintiff's claim. State Farm denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9. 10. State Farm admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 10. 11. State Farm admits that the policy was issued to Alberto Figueroa in Cuyahoga County. State Farm denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 11. 12. State Farm denies for want of knowledge the allegations contained in Paragraph 12. 13. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13. 14. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14. 15. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 15. 16. State Farm admits that it has properly denied coverage for all claims arising from the subject accident. State Farm denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 16. 17. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17. 18. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18. 19. State Farm denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19. Second Defense 20. The liability coverage in State Farm’s policy applies only to certain claims involving the use of “your car,” a “newly acquired car,” a “trailer,” a “non-owned car,” or a “temporary substitute car,” as defined in State Farm’s policy (collectively “covered auto”). 21. The subj ect accident did not involve use of a covered auto. 22. Consequently, State Farm’s liability coverage does not apply. Third Defense 23. Plaintiff is only an “insured” under State Farm’s policy for medical payments Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH 2 coverage if she was occupying a covered auto at the time of the accident. 24. Plaintiff was not occupying a covered auto at the time of the subject accident. 25. Consequently, State Farm's policy does not provide medical payments coverage for plaintiff. Fourth Defense 26. State Farm reserves the right to rely on any and all other applicable terms, conditions, and exclusions in the policy. Affirmative Defenses 1. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiffs action was not timely commenced and thus is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 3. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that the Complaint should be dismissed due to improper venue. 4. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiff failed to join necessary and indispensable parties. 5. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiffs Complaint fails for insufficiency of service. 6. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiffs Complaint fails for insufficiency of service of process. 7. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiff was comparatively negligent, proximately causing her own injuries. Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH 3 8. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiffs non-economic damages, if any, are limited pursuant to R.C. 2315.18. 9. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiffs non-economic damages must be reduced due to Plaintiffs non-use of a seatbelt. 10. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that the punitive claim must be bifurcated from the compensatory claim. 11. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, if any, is limited pursuant to statute. 12. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that liability, if any, must be apportioned among all liable parties and non-parties from whom Plaintiff is not seeking recovery pursuant to RC 2307.23 and all related statutes. 13. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that Plaintiff is not the real party in interest as to some or all of Plaintiffs alleged damages. 14. Defendant State Farm affirmatively states that it is entitled to contribution and indemnity from all other tortfeasors, consistent with Ohio Revised Code §2307.025 and Ohio Revised Code §2305.31 and incorporate the statutory language as a defense. 15. Defendant State Farm reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as they become known during discovery. WHEREFORE, State Farm demands that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice at plaintiffs costs, and such other or further relief as may be just and proper. Counterclaim and Cross-Claim for Declaratory Judgment State Farm states as follows for its Counterclaim against plaintiff and Cross-Claim against defendants Emily Oquendo-Maldonado and Alberto Figueroa: Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH 4 1. State Farm is an insurance company, which issued a policy of auto insurance to defendant Alberto Figueroa (“Figueroa”), a certified copy of which is attached hereto. 2. State Farm's policy insured a 2018 Honda Civic, and identifies lessor Honda Financial Services as additional insured. 3. At the time of the accident here at issue, defendant Emily Oquendo-Maldonado (“Emily”) was driving a 2021 Honda HR-V, in which plaintiff was a passenger. 4. State Farm's policy defines “insured” for liability coverage in pertinent part as follows: 4. any other person who is not insured for vehicle liability coverage by any other insurance policy, a self-insurance program, or a liability bond for his or her use of: a. your car; b. a newly acquired car; c. a temporary substitute car; or d. a trailer while attached to a car described in a., b., or c. above. Such vehicle must be used within the scope ofyour consent; 5. The medical payments coverage in State Farm's policy defines “insured” in pertinent part as follows: 2. any other person while occupying: a. your car; b. a newly acquired car; c. a temporary substitute car; or d. a trailer while attached to a car described in a., b., or c. above. Such vehicle must be used within the scope ofyour consent. Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH 5 6. State Farm's policy defines “insured” for uninsured motorist coverage in pertinent part as follows: Insured means: 1. you; 2. resident relatives; 3. any other person who is not insured for uninsured motor vehicle coverage under another vehicle policy while occupying: a. your car; b. a newly acquired car; or c. a temporary substitute car. Such vehicle must be used within the scope ofyour consent. Such other person occupying a vehicle used to carry persons for a charge is not an insured; 7. The Honda HR-V that Emily as driving at the time of the subject accident does not meet the policy's definition of “your car,” “newly acquired car,” “temporary substitute car,” or “trailer.” 8. Figueroa and Emily do not meet the definition of “insured” for liability coverage. 9. Plaintiff and Emily do not meet the definition of “insured” for medical payments coverage. 10. Plaintiff does not meet the definition of “insured” for medical payments or uninsured motorist coverage. 11. State Farm therefore has no duty to defend or indemnify Figueroa and Emily as to plaintiffs claim; no duty to provide medical payments coverage to plaintiff or Emily; and no duty to provide uninsured motorist coverage to plaintiff. WHEREFORE, State Farm demands a declaratory judgment as set forth above, and such Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH 6 other or further relief as may be just and proper. Jury Demand State Farm hereby demands a trial by jury. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Patrick/M. RocHe PATRICK M. ROCHE (0071359) Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, LLC 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500 Cleveland, Ohio 44145 Direct: (440) 438-3011 Office: (216) 916-7730 / Fax: (216) 916-7725 Email: pmroche@cruglaw.com Attorney for Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 20, 2023, the foregoing document was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system. /s/ Patrick/M. RocHe PATRICK M. ROCHE (0071359) Collins Roche Utley & Garner, LLC Attorney for Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Electronically Filed 09/20/2023 08:40 / MOTION / CV 23 978672 / Confirmation Nbr. 2968314 / BATCH 7