COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73457 NICOLE HAYNES ACCELERATED DOCKET Plaintiff-appellant JOURNAL ENTRY vs. AND FRANCIS LOCK, ET AL. OPINION Defendants-appellees PER CURIAM DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 7, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-322836 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: For defendants-appellees: CHRISTIAN R. PATNO MARK V. MICHELI Attorney at Law Attorney at Law SEAMAN & ASSOCIATES Lakeside Place, Suite 410 1600 Rockefeller Building 323 Lakeside Avenue, West 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- PER CURIAM: The sole issue in this accelerated appeal is whether a bicycle constitutes a motor vehicle within the scope of the uninsured motorist coverage of an automobile insurance policy. While crossing a public street as a pedestrian in a cross walk, plaintiff-appellant Nicole Haynes was struck by a bicycle. She sought in this action to recover uninsured motorist benefits under an automobile policy, under which she qualified as an insured, issued by defendant-appellee Nationwide Insurance Co. ( Nationwide ). Nationwide filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the bicycle which struck her did not constitute a motor vehicle. After receiving Haynes' brief in opposition, the trial court granted Nationwide's motion for summary judgment.1 Haynes appeals raising the following sole assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FINDING THAT DEFENDANT- APPELLEE NATIONWIDE HAD NO DUTY TO COMPENSATE PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT NICOLE HAYNES. This assignment lacks merit. Haynes argues alternately that Nationwide's policy clearly covers bicycles as motor vehicles, that the policy is ambiguous so it should be construed to do so, and that failure to provide such coverage is contrary to public policy. She argues that 1 Plaintiff also named the bicyclist, Francis Lock, but failed to perfect service on him. Although the trial court did not adjudicate this claim, it is not pending in the trial court and does not defeat our jurisdiction. See Harris v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. (1988), 40 Ohio App.3d 127, 129. -3- bicycles should be deemed to constitute motor vehicles for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage because bicycles are frequently treated like motor vehicles for purposes of state and municipal traffic, registration, and licensing requirements. As in all insurance coverage disputes, our review begins with the uninsured motorist provision of Nationwide's Century II Auto Policy, which provides in pertinent part as follows: We will pay compensatory damages as a result of bodily injurysuffered by you or a relative and due by law from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle. Damages must result from an accident arising out of the: 1. ownership; 2. maintenance; or 3. use; of the uninsured motor vehicle. (Emphasis in original.) The parties' dispute in this case concerns paragraph 7 of the definition section of the policy, which defines the term motor vehicle as follows: 7. `MOTOR VEHICLE' means a land motor vehicle designed for use on public roads. This does not include motor vehicles operated on rails or crawler treads. Other motor vehicles designed for use mainly off public roads are covered when used on public roads. (Emphasis in original). There is no ambiguity in this language. Plaintiff's argument that a bicycle constitutes a motor vehicle ignores that the term motor modifies the term vehicle each time it is used. It is undisputed that the bicycle which collided with her was propelled by human power and was not powered by a motor of any kind. The commonly-shared and well-understood distinction between these terms is reflected in Ohio Revised Code Section 4501.01, -4- which defines the terms vehicle, motor vehicle, and bicycle. 3 R.C. 4501.01(B) specifically defines the term motor vehicle to mean any vehicle *** propelled or drawn by power other than muscular power *** except motorized bicycles ***. Bicycles do not constitute motor vehicles. Brown v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co. (1995), 70 Misc.2d 71. Contrary to plaintiff's argument, R.C. 3937.18, the u2ninsured/underinsured motorist insurance coverage statute, relies on the same definitions. R.C. 3937.18(A)(1) mandates that uninsured motorist coverage *** shall provide protection for bodily injury or death *** for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operations of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom ***. (Emphasis added.) It does not mandate such coverage for bicycles. For these reasons, neither Nationwide's policy nor R.C. 3937.18 provides or mandates uninsured motorist coverage for bicycle-pedestrian accidents arising solely from the use of bicycles. Nor is there any public policy that dictates otherwise. 2 R.C. 4501.01(A) defines vehicle to mean everything on wheels or runners, including motorized bicycles ***. 3 R.C. 4501.01(K) defines bicycle to mean every device, other than a tricycle that is designed for use as a play vehicle by a child, that is propelled solely by human power upon which any person may ride, and that has either two tandem wheels, or one wheel in front and two wheels in the rear, any of which is more than fourteen inches in diameter. -5- Accordingly, plaintiff's sole assignment of error is overruled. -6- It is ordered that appellee(s) recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE DIANE KARPINSKI, JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON, JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .