Legal Opinion · Dissent

Schumacher v. Kreiner

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 2000No. 99-245Published

1DissentCook, J.

I agree with Justice Stratton that Schumacher lacked standing, since he was not a party to the contract, an insured under the policy, or an intended third-party beneficiary. I further dissent from the majority’s opinion because a plaintiff must be an insured under the applicable liability policy in order to be eligible for imposition of UM coverage by operation of law. Accordingly, the majority’s holding that UM coverage may be extended in favor of a non-insured expands R.C. 3937.18 without support and revises the contract entered into between Motorists and Relay Express.

It is a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mutual Fire InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Abate v. Pioneer Mutual Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Martin v. Midwestern Group InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Gyori v. Johnston Coca-Cola Bottling Group, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Motorists Mutual Ins. Co. v. TomanskiOhio Supreme Court · 1971

1 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