Legal Opinion
Buckeye Union Insurance v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 9, 1977No. Nos. 76-599 and 76-604PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilliam B. Brown, J.
The main issue raised by this cause is the effect to be given to two insurance policies covering the same risk and providing that their liability with regard to that risk shall be excess insurance over other valid, collectible insurance.
Buckeye proposes two reasons why State Auto should be primarily liable for the damages arising out of the Harrell accident. The first is that, “as a practical matter, the State Auto insured was responsible for the accident.” The second is that neither policy qualifies “by its terms” as a policy of primary insurance, and, therefore, “the policy which…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Oregon Auto. Ins. Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
- Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
- Continental Casualty Co. v. Buckeye Union Casualty Co., Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division1957
- Trinity Universal Ins. v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1941
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Bankers Indemnity InsOhio Court of Appeals · 1935
3Cited by30 opinions
- Crown Center Redevelopment Corp. v. Occidental Fire & Casualty Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1986
- Carriers Insurance Co. v. American Policyholders' InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
- Mission Insurance v. Allendale Mutual InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1981
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. American Centennial Insurance Co.Lucas County Court of Common Pleas · 1995
- American Casualty Co. of Reading v. Phico InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.