are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.CivP. 56(c). While the Ohio Supreme Court has not ruled on the precise issue presented in this case, Ohio case law strongly suggests that, lacking contractual language to the contrary, multiple corporate entities listed as named insured parties are covered individually, not collectively. “Parent and subsidiary corporations are distinct legal entities.” Hoover Universal, Inc. v. Limbach, 61 Ohio St.3d 563, 575 N.E.2d 811, 814 (1991). As separate legal entities, each named insured corporation has distinct rights and obligations when both are listed as named insured parties on an insurance policy. Linko v. Indemn. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 90 Ohio St.3d 445, 789 N.E.2d 338, 343 (2000) (<HOLDING>). This distinction of legal entities continues
holding that a hit and run or unknown driver is deemed to be uninsured for purposes of the uninsured motorist statute holding business automobile policy issued to a corporation did not provide uninsured motorist coverage for owners son holding that parent corporation could not waive uninsured motoristunder insured motorist coverage without written consent of subsidiary holding that a close relationship between a parent corporation and a subsidiary may justify finding that the parent engages in business in the jurisdiction through the local activities of its subsidiary holding that while the owner of several vehicles by paying a single premium for um coverage applicable to only one of them secures um coverage for himself and his family while occupying the uninsured vehicles as well as the insured vehicle the number of uninsured motorist coverages available to be stacked should be based upon the number of coverages for which uninsured motorist premiums were paid