Legal Opinion

Glidden Co. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 2006No. 2005-0293PublishedCited by 118 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connor, J.

{¶ 1} This is a discretionary appeal accepted as a case of great general interest pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(1)(A)(3). Appellants Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company (“Lumbermens”), American Motorists Insurance Company (“AMICO”), Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company (“Hartford”), Century Indemnity Company (“Century,” as successor to INA), Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, and London Market Insurance Companies (collectively, “London”), are putative insurers of appellee, the Glidden Company (“Glidden III”). We are asked to resolve the question of whether insurance coverage arises for…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Norwood v. McDonaldOhio Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Fort Frye Teachers Ass'n v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Denham v. City of New CarlisleOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State ex rel. Chavis v. Sycamore City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Linko v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North AmericaOhio Supreme Court · 2000

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

3Cited by118 opinions

  1. State v. SarkozyOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. O'Toole v. DenihanOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  3. CHKRS, LLC v. City of Dublin, OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
  4. DRFP, LLC v. Republica Bolivariana de VenezuelaDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2013
  5. State ex rel. Municipal Construction Equipment Operators' Labor Council v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 2007

113 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