Legal Opinion

Stanton v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 1993No. 92-1982PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

The sole issue before us is whether appellant’s “for fee” exclusion in the uninsured motorist coverage of appellee’s personal automobile insurance policy is enforceable in the commercial setting in which this case arose. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the exclusion is not enforceable. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*113I

The General Assembly determined by enacting R.C. 3937.18 that automobile liability carriers must offer uninsured motorist coverage to their customers. Watson v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 195, 532 N.E.2d 758. This court has…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State Farm Automobile Insurance v. AlexanderOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Bartlett v. Nationwide Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Dairyland Insurance v. FinchOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Orris v. ClaudioOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Watson v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Clark v. ScarpelliOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Martin v. Midwestern Group InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Moore v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Lager v. Miller-GonzalezOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Ross v. Farmers Ins. Group of Cos.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API