Insurance Law Commons^™

Uninsured Motorists Coverage Validity Of Other Insurance Provisions; Curran V. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co., Dennis J. Fox

Akron Law Review

It was the contention of the defendant-appellant insurers that their liability was limited in both instances by the "other insurance" provisions of their respective policies. These provisions were both "excess insurance" clauses. The Ohio Supreme Court, in ruling upon what it considered to be the sole issue in this case, denied effectiveness to these clauses.

Uninsured Motorists Coverage Validity Of Other Insurance Provisions; Curran V. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co., Dennis J. Fox

Akron Law Review

It was the contention of the defendant-appellant insurers that their liability was limited in both instances by the "other insurance" provisions of their respective policies. These provisions were both "excess insurance" clauses. The Ohio Supreme Court, in ruling upon what it considered to be the sole issue in this case, denied effectiveness to these clauses.

Uninsured Motorist Coverage - Scope Of The Term - "Uninsured Motorist"; Porter V. Empire Fire And Marine Insurance Co., Dennis J. Fox

Akron Law Review

The appellant, James T. Porter, was involved in an automobile accident in which he and four other persons were injured. The tortfeasor was insured to the extent of the statutory minimum ($10,000-$20,000) as provided for by the Arizona Financial Responsibility Act.' The appellant subsequently obtained a judgment against the tortfeasor for $10,000. He then entered into a proposed settlement with the tortfeasor's insurer under which he was to receive $2,500 of the $20,000 of insurance proceeds available for allocation among the injured parties. Mr. Porter notified his insurer (the appellee) of the proposed settlement and requested the appellee satisfy the …

Uninsured Motorist Coverage - Scope Of The Term - "Uninsured Motorist"; Porter V. Empire Fire And Marine Insurance Co., Dennis J. Fox

Akron Law Review

Absent a statutory definition of "uninsured motorist," the court under its powers of construction must, in a functional sense, legislate the gap-filling language. The outcome elsewhere on facts similar to those in Porter will depend, in part, on whether the legislature in adopting uninsured motorist statutes, have incorporated a definition of its terms.

Uninsured Motorist Insurance Now Covers Punitive Award - Hutchinson V. J.C. Penny Casualty Insurance Company, Dale Katzenmeyer

Akron Law Review

A split of authority exists among the few states which have decided the issue In jurisdictions permitting recovery of punitive damages, uninsured motorist coverage is intended to place the insurer in the shoes of the uninsured tortfeasor. Since the insurer stands in the shoes of the tortfeasor, and since punitive damages could be covered if the tortfeasor had his own insurance, it is illogical to deny the victim punitive damages simply because the tortfeasor is uninsured. Other jurisdictions believe that punitive damages should not be awarded since that award would not operate to punish the tortfeasor and would therefore violate …

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 …