An Ohio appellate court reversed an award of summary judgment favoring an insurer after finding an ambiguity in the policy at issue. The case is Westfall v. Estate of Dlesk, 46 N.E.3d 124 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). 

Donald Dlesk was killed in a single-auto accident after his vehicle went off the road and struck a tree. The law enforcement officers who responded to the accident called on Russell Westfall and his company, Westfall Towing (collectively, Westfall), to remove Dlesk's van from the scene. At the time of the accident, Dlesk had coverage under an auto policy issued by Ohio Mutual Insurance Group.

Westfall later sought reimbursement for the costs of towing and storing the vehicle from Dlesk's estate. The towing company argued it was entitled to payment based on the coverage provided by Dlesk's auto policy and because state law required insurers to cover towing and storage costs as expenses that "arise out of the ordinary use of a motor vehicle." The estate and Ohio Mutual (collectively, Ohio Mutual) argued the opposite: No such coverage requirement existed in the Ohio statutes, and Dlesk had not actually purchased collision coverage. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurer and estate after finding Dlesk had neither purchased nor paid premium for collision coverage, and his policy provided only comprehensive coverage. Westfall appealed.