Legal Opinion
Toms v. Hartford Fire Ins.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided November 21, 1945No. 30329PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtZimmerman, J.
Opposing counsel agree that an important feature of this case is the meaning to be given the term “theft” as used in the insurance contract involved. Consequently, we shall first direct attention to that subject.
The insurance contract provides insurance coverage for “loss of use [of an automobile] by theft,” “Theft, if the entire automobile is taken,” and “D-l theft (broad form).”
No definition of the terms “theft” or “larceny” appears anywhere in the insurance contract.
A clause of the contract also provides that the insurer will defend any suit against the insured “as respects insurance…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Royal Insurance v. JackOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- Block v. Standard Ins. Co. of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1944
- Baker v. Continental InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1942
- Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance v. HouseTennessee Supreme Court · 1932
- James v. Phoenix Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1924
3Cited by31 opinions
- Olmstead v. Lumbermens Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
- Buckeye Union Insurance v. Liberty Solvents & Chemicals Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1984
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1984
- Munchick v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1965
- Essex House v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1975
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.