Legal Opinion

Zanco, Inc. v. Michigan Mutual Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 1984No. 83-1278PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Per curiam

In its first proposition of law, Zanco argues that an insurer owes a duty to defend its insured if the pleading against the insured contains allegations which are vague, ambiguous, nebulous or incomplete such that a potential for coverage exists. This rule has recently been adopted in Ohio. In Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St. 3d 177, this court held that “[w]here the insurer’s duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the action against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage, or there…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. City of Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1984

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Cole v. American Industries & Resources Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. Wedge Products, Inc. v. Hartford Equity Sales Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Knutson Construction Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  4. Ryan Homes, Inc. v. Home Indemnity Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., and Tocco, Inc. v. The Home Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1992

37 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