Genealogy Expert’s Affidavit Defeats a Coverage Denial in United Ohio Ins. Co. v. Brooks
In United Ohio Ins. Co. v. Brooks, the Ohio Court of Appeals held that a homeowner’s insurance policy covered injuries caused by the insured’s girlfriend’s son because genealogical evidence showed he was distantly related by blood, and the policy imposed no limit on the degree of consanguinity.
Services of forensic genealogists, probate genealogists, professional genealogists, genealogy experts, and certified legal document translation services are often used in cases involving inheritance disputes; locating missing and unknown estate heirs; historical land claims; provenance research; proving eligibility for dual citizenship by descent. In a compelling intersection of family history research and insurance litigation, the Court of Appeals of Ohio’s decision in United Ohio Insurance Co. v. Brooks, demonstrates the surprising legal power of expert genealogical research. At the heart of this dispute was a question of whether a homeowner’s insurance policy covered injuries caused by an ATV driven by the son of the insured’s girlfriend. The plaintiff, injured in the incident, faced a denial of coverage based on a narrow interpretation of the term “family member.” But with the help of a genealogist’s detailed report, that interpretation was successfully challenged—and ultimately overturned on appeal.
The Incident and the Coverage Denial
In March 2009, plaintiff Kasey Brooks was injured when a teenager, Kalob Ditto, struck her with an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and left the scene without reporting the injury. Kalob lived with his mother, Lorie Ditto, and her boyfriend Jerry Burgei at the time of the incident. Burgei held a homeowner’s insurance policy with United Ohio Insurance Company (UOIC), which defined “insured” persons to include members of the insured’s household who were “related to [the insured] by blood.”
Brooks filed suit against Kalob, his mother Lorie, and Burgei for negligence and negligent entrustment. UOIC, in response, intervened in the litigation to seek a declaratory judgment stating that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify any of the defendants. UOIC’s argument was straightforward: Kalob was not “related by blood” to Burgei and therefore was not an insured under the policy.
Genealogical Investigation: A New Approach to an Old Term
At this point, the case took an unusual turn. Brooks, in an attempt to establish coverage under the policy, submitted evidence that Kalob was in fact related to Burgei—though distantly. She retained Ruth Wilhelm, a genealogist affiliated with the Putnam County District Library, to investigate the familial ties between Burgei and Lorie Ditto, Kalob’s mother.
Wilhelm’s initial affidavit stated that, after reviewing public and ecclesiastical records, she found that Jerry Burgei and Lorie Ditto shared common ancestors: specifically, great-great-great-grandparents Joseph Siefker and Francisca Mary Feldhake. This meant that Burgei and Lorie were distant cousins—making Kalob, through his mother, related to Burgei by blood, albeit eleven degrees removed.
The initial affidavit faced resistance. UOIC moved to strike it, arguing that Wilhelm lacked personal knowledge, relied on hearsay, and was not qualified to testify about such matters under Ohio’s civil procedure rules. In response, Brooks submitted a second affidavit from Wilhelm, significantly bolstering the genealogist’s credibility.
In this supplemental affidavit, Wilhelm detailed her extensive experience in genealogical research and outlined the specific historical documents she relied upon—birth and death certificates, probate records, U.S. Census data, baptismal records from the Toledo Catholic Diocese, and newspaper obituaries. She affirmed that these documents were authentic and maintained in appropriate repositories. Notably, UOIC did not move to strike this second affidavit.
Trial Court’s Narrow View of “Related by Blood”
Despite the unrefuted genealogical evidence, the trial court sided with UOIC. It concluded that even if Burgei and Kalob shared a distant blood relationship, the degree of consanguinity—eleven degrees of kinship—was too remote to meet the insurance policy’s “related by blood” requirement. The court therefore held that Kalob was not an insured under the policy, meaning UOIC had no duty to defend or indemnify him or the other defendants.
Brooks appealed.
The Appellate Court’s Reversal: Words Mean What They Say
The Court of Appeals reversed. Writing for the court, Judge Shaw emphasized that the homeowner’s policy defined “insured” as someone “related by blood” to the named insured who resides in the same household. Crucially, the policy did not place any limit on the degree of blood relation required.
Judge Shaw rejected UOIC’s argument that “related by blood” should be read narrowly to include only close familial relationships. Instead, the court interpreted the language of the policy literally: if Kalob and Burgei were related by blood, and Kalob resided in Burgei’s household at the time of the incident, then Kalob qualified as an insured. The court reasoned:
“Although the blood relationship between [Kalob] and [Burgei] is remote, the language of the policy places no limit on the degree of consanguinity in its definition of ‘family member.’”
Because the policy itself lacked any language limiting coverage to close relatives, the court refused to read such a limitation into the contract. As such, it held that UOIC had a duty to defend and potentially indemnify under the homeowner’s policy. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Why the Genealogist’s Report Mattered
The victory hinged not merely on a clever reading of an insurance policy, but on the legitimacy and thoroughness of Wilhelm’s genealogical investigation. Without her research, Brooks would have had no way to rebut UOIC’s denial of coverage on the basis that Kalob was unrelated to the policyholder.
The second affidavit was pivotal. It transformed Wilhelm from a perceived layperson offering speculative family history into a credible expert backed by documentary evidence and professional methods. By meticulously identifying the original sources of her findings and attesting to their authenticity, Wilhelm gave the appellate court confidence to accept her conclusion: Kalob and Burgei were blood relatives.
This was more than a technical detail. In insurance litigation, policy definitions control. And where policies contain undefined or broadly stated terms—like “related by blood”—evidence like Wilhelm’s can be dispositive. This case shows how a professional genealogist can function much like a forensic accountant or accident reconstructionist: offering evidence that directly refutes a denial of coverage.
Broader Implications: Unusual Evidence, Strategic Thinking
United Ohio Ins. Co. v. Brooks stands out for more than its outcome. It showcases creative legal strategy. Faced with an insurer’s narrow view of policy language, the plaintiff’s team deployed a nontraditional type of expert—one more commonly associated with probate cases or historical societies—to refute a key factual claim.
It’s also a cautionary tale for insurers. The ruling suggests that insurers who want to limit coverage to only close family members must say so explicitly in their policies. Leaving terms like “related by blood” undefined invites courts to apply them broadly, especially when plaintiffs can produce persuasive evidence of even distant consanguinity.
The case also underscores the value of a thorough appellate record. Brooks’ counsel ensured that Wilhelm’s second affidavit included not just assertions, but copies of the very documents she relied upon. This gave the court a firm evidentiary foundation to overturn the trial court’s decision.
The Surprising Power of Genealogy in an Insurance Dispute
The appellate court’s decision in United Ohio Ins. Co. v. Brooks affirms a powerful but often overlooked truth in litigation: facts matter, and how they are proven matters even more. The genealogist’s detailed report—comprising dusty census records, Catholic baptismal certificates, and old newspaper clippings—had real legal power. It transformed an assumed denial into a covered claim and reminded the legal community that sometimes, the family tree is the most important exhibit in the case file.
In an era where big data and digital analytics often dominate the courtroom, this case is a striking reminder of the continuing relevance of traditional, document-driven investigation—and the unexpected ways it can drive justice.
Get in touch with the genealogy experts at All Language Alliance, Inc. to obtain a professional genealogist’s affidavit accompanied by irrefutable genealogical evidence. Request evidentiary translation of multilingual genealogical and historical documents handwritten in Swedish; Turkish; Polish; Danish; Finnish; Dutch; Norwegian; Italian; Portuguese; Hebrew; Armenian; Chinese; Hungarian; Greek; Croatian; Ottoman; Thai; Korean; Japanese; Spanish; Romanian, and other foreign languages to prove your case.
Case Discussed:
United Ohio Ins. Co. v. Brooks, Case No. 12‑11‑04, 2012‑Ohio‑1469, 2012 WL 1099821 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. Apr. 2, 2012).
#alllanguagealliance #forensicgenealogist #probategenealogist #forensicgenealogy #probategenealogy #genealogyresearchservices #insurancelitigation #genealogyexpert #genealogy #expertgenealogyservices #expertwitness #expertwitnessaffidavit
Up Next: Certified Translation of U.S. Discovery for International Probate