In re Nationwide Insurance
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtH. Brown, J.
I
The first issue before us is whether Nationwide may set off the amount of *12compensation paid on behalf of the tortfeasor against the limits of Stobbs’ uninsured motorist coverage.
The court of appeals found that language in the uninsured motorist coverage of the policy under a provision entitled “Limits of Payment” was contradictory to the trust agreement provision of that coverage and should be construed against the insurer. The language relied upon by the court of appeals reads:
“AMOUNTS PAYABLE FOR UNINSURED MOTORISTS LOSSES
* *
“3. Any amount payable to or for the insured under this coverage…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- James v. Michigan Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- Gomolka v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1984
3Cited by15 opinions
- State Automobile Mutual Insurance v. YoulerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1990
- Cole v. HollandOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Webb v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1992
- Wallace v. BalintOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Cincinnati Insurance v. KramerOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.