Rednour v. Hastings Mutual Insurance

We granted leave to appeal to consider the proper definition of the word “occupying” in the no-fault automobile-insurance policy at issue in this case. We hold that plaintiff was not “occupying” the vehicle as that term is defined in the policy because he was outside the vehicle and approximately six inches from it when the other automobile struck him. We thus reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court’s decision.

1. underlying facts and procedural posture

Plaintiff was driving a friend’s car in Ohio. The left rear tire of the vehicle became flat. To change the…