COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           No. 83435
 
NATASHA TIPPLE               :
                             :       JOURNAL ENTRY
    Plaintiff-Appellant      :
                             :           AND
    vs.                      :
                             :         OPINION
ALFRED GOBLE, ET AL.         :
                             :
    Defendants-Appellees     :
                             :
                             :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT         :
OF DECISION                  :    April 22, 2004
 
                             :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS     :    Civil appeal from
                             :    Common Pleas Court
                             :    Case No. CV-460754
                             :
JUDGMENT                     :    AFFIRMED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION       :
 
APPEARANCES:
 
For plaintiff-appellant           STEPHEN S. VANEK, ESQ.
                                  Friedman, Domiano & Smith Co.
                                  1370 Ontario Street
                                  600 Standard Building
                                  Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1701
 
For defendants-appellees          JENNIFER L. KIRKPATRICK, ESQ.
                                  Freund, Freeze & Arnold
                                  105 East Fourth Street
                                  Suite 1400
                                  Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
 
                                  JEFFREY L. AUSTIN, ESQ.
                                  55 Public Square
                                  Suite 800
                                  Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2079
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -2-
 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
 
     Appellant Natasha Tipple ("Tipple") appeals the judgment of
 
the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, which denied her motion
 
for summary judgment and granted the motion for summary judgment of
 
appellee United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company ("USF&G"). For
 
the reasons that follow, we affirm.
 
     On July 5, 2001, Tipple was struck by an automobile while
 
walking from her vehicle at a gas station in New London, Ohio.
 
Tipple alleged that the automobile that struck her was owned by
 
Alfred Goble and driven by Traniece Jones. Tipple sustained
 
injuries and damages as a result of the accident.
 
     At the time of the accident, Tipple was employed by
 
McDonald's Restaurants. However, Tipple was not acting within the
 
course and scope of employment when the accident occurred.
 
     R.H.F. Enterprises, dba McDonald 's Restaurants, was a named
 
insured under a policy issued by USF&G. Tipple brought this action
 
against USF&G seeking to have uninsured/underinsured motorist
 
coverage ("UM/UIM coverage") imposed by law under the USF&G
 
policy.1 Both Tipple and USF&G moved for summary judgment.
 
     The trial court denied Tipple's motion and granted USF&G's
 
motion. The trial court determined that UM/UIM coverage could not
 
 
 
 
     1  Alfred Goble and Traniece Jones were also named as
defendants. Tipple voluntarily dismissed Alfred Goble from the
action and obtained a default judgment against Traniece Jones.
Neither is a party to this appeal.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -3-
 
be imposed by law because the policy was not an automobile policy
 
of insurance pursuant to R.C. 3937.18 since it did not specifically
 
identify any automobiles.
 
     Tipple appeals the judgment of the trial court raising one
 
assignment of error for this court's review:
 
     "1. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in
 
favor of appellee [USF&G] * * *."2
 
     The Ohio Supreme Court in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100
 
Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, held: "Absent specific language to
 
the contrary, a policy of insurance that names a corporation as an
 
insured for uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage covers a
 
loss sustained by an employee of the corporation only if the loss
 
occurs within the course and scope of employment." Id. at
 
paragraph two of the syllabus.
 
     Under the facts of this case, the named insured under the
 
USF&G policy was a corporation. Since Tipple's loss did not occur
 
within the course and scope of her employment, she is not an
 
insured for UM/UIM purposes under the policy. Therefore, Tipple is
 
not entitled to UM/UIM coverage. We affirm the judgment of the
 
trial court, albeit for another reason. See Joyce v. Gen. Motors
 
Corp. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 93, 96.
 
     Judgment affirmed.
 
 
 
 
     2 We have abbreviated the assignment of error because it was
not written in Tipple's brief as a complete sentence.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -4-
 
     It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant 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 Cuyahoga County 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.
 
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, P.J.,      AND
 
ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J., CONCUR.
 
 
 
 
                                         SEAN C. GALLAGHER
                                              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. 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).
 
.