Insurance Law Commons^™

The Impact Of State Farm V. Alexander On Uninsured And Underinsured Motorist Coverage Generally, And In To Relation To The Owned-But-Not -Insured Exclusion, Shawn Gordon Lisle

Akron Law Review

The discussion contained herein will commence with a brief examination of the uninsured and underinsured motorist statute's purpose.

Following the discussion of the uninsured motorist statute's purpose, the discussion will proceed to survey all cases to date which have had occasion to deal with Alexander in a substantive manner. Nine of the twelve Ohio appellate districts have considered the Alexander decision in some respect. Likewise, the Ohio Supreme Court has cited to Alexander as authority for reversing appellate court decisions which upheld exclusions violative of R.C. § 3937.18's purpose. Each decision shall be presented and examined in turn, grouped either …

Girgis V. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.: Rescinding The Physical Contact Requirement In Ohio Uninsured Motorist Claims, Dominick Cirelli Jr.

Akron Law Review

Nearly every state has a requirement concerning uninsured motorist coverage, although state statutes differ in their scope and language. There has been a great volume of literature discussing the applicability of uninsured motorist coverage in cases involving hit and run drivers. This casenote will set out the various state statutory approaches to hit and run vehicles under uninsured motorist coverage, as well as evaluate the Ohio Supreme Court's historical approach to the physical contact doctrine. The casenote will thoroughly address the Girgis opinion and its underlying rationale, as well as the repercussions of abrogating the physical contract doctrine. Finally, this …