Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Insurance Law
Uninsured Motorists Coverage Validity Of Other Insurance Provisions; Curran V. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co., Dennis J. Fox
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
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
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
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.
Burglary Insurance Policies; Reasonable Expectations; Unconscionability; Application Of Implied Warranty Of Fitness; C & J Fertilizer, Inc. V. Allied Mutual Ins. Co., Janice Gui
Akron Law Review
THE IOWA SUPREME COURT handed down a landmark decision in C & I Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mutual Ins. Co.', in holding that insurance policies carry implied warranties that they are fit for their intended use. The impetus for this decision was a clause in a burglary and robbery policy which defined "burglary" as . . . the felonious abstraction of insured property . . . from within the premises by a person making felonious entry therein by actual force and violence, of which force and violence there are visible marks made by tools, explosives, electricity or chemicals upon, or …
Tortious Liability For Bad Faith Refusal To Pay, Jeffrey Schobert
Tortious Liability For Bad Faith Refusal To Pay, Jeffrey Schobert
Akron Law Review
In Hoskins v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., the Ohio Supreme Court imposed on insurers a good faith duty in any refusal to pay claims made by their insured. Its decision placed Ohio among a growing number of jurisdictions that have recognized this good faith duty. The court adopted its rationale by relying heavily on existing insurance case law in the refusal-to-settle third-party claims type actions. The court defined the standard of good faith in terms of a reasonable justification by the insurer in refusing to pay a claim "because it believed there was no coverage of the claim." The …