COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           NO. 83339
 
EDUARDO ALICEA,              :
                             :
    Plaintiff-Appellant/     :
    Cross-Appellee           :         JOURNAL ENTRY
                             :               and
    vs.                      :             OPINION
                             :
AMERICAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE  :
CO., ET AL.,                 :
                             :
    Defendants-Appellees/    :
    Cross-Appellants         :
 
 
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                  :    MARCH 18, 2004
 
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING      :    Civil appeal from
                             :    Common Pleas Court
                             :    Case No. 478063
 
JUDGMENT                     :    AFFIRMED.
 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION       :
 
APPEARANCES:
 
For plaintiff-appellant/     Stephen S. Vanek, Esq.
cross-appellee:              FRIEDMAN, DOMIANO & SMITH CO., LPA
                             1370 Ontario Street
                             600 Standard Building
                             Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1701
 
For defendants-appellees/    James N. Kline, Esq.
cross-appellants:            ULMER & BERNE, LLP
                             1300 East Ninth Street
                             900 Bond Court Building
                             Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1583
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -2-
 
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, A.J.:
 
     Appellant, Eduardo Alicea ("Alicea"), appeals the trial
 
court's decision granting summary judgment to appellee, American
 
Alliance Insurance Company ("American"), thus denying Alicea's
 
claims pursuant to Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 85
 
Ohio St.3d 660, 1999-Ohio-292, 710 N.E.2d 1116 for injuries he
 
suffered in an accident in December 1992 .
 
     In December 1992, while Alicea and others pushed Elizabeth
 
Irizarry's car, which ran out of gas, to a nearby gas station,
 
Michael Cocita, another motorist, struck Alicea and injured his
 
leg. Although Alicea was employed by Arrow International Company,
 
it is undisputed that, at the time of the accident, Alicea was not
 
acting in the course and scope of his employment and instead was on
 
a personal matter. Because Alicea was not acting within the course
 
or scope of his employment at the time the accident occurred,
 
Alicea cannot maintain a Scott-Pontzer action. See Westfield Ins.
 
Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, ¶61, 797 N.E.2d
 
1256 ("we hereby limit Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
 
to apply only where an employee is within the course and scope of
 
employment.") Based on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in
 
Westfield Ins. Co., we need not address the arguments raised in
 
Alicea's appeal, nor in American's cross-appeal. Thus, the trial
 
court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of American is
 
affirmed.
 
     Judgment affirmed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -3-
 
     It is ordered that defendants-appellees/cross-appellants
 
recover of plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee 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.
 
 
 
                                         MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN
                                         ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., and
 
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR.
 
 
 
 
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. 22. 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
clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section
2(A)(1).
 
.