Legal Opinion

Joins v. Bonner

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1986No. 86-362PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClifford F. Brown, J.

The trial court, and the court of appeals, in essence held that the provisions of the policy would exclude coverage here. Construing the term “alighting from,” as found in the definition of “occupying” in the policy, the courts below found the term inapplicable to Brian Joins because he had no physical contact with the Bonner automobile at the time of the injury, was not undertaking any endeavor connected with the automobile, and was not “vehicle oriented.” Instead, as concluded by the appellate court below, he “had completed his exit and had moved away from the motor vehicle and was headed…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Buckeye Union Insurance v. PriceOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Whitmire v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1970
  3. Robson v. Lightning Rod Mutual InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1978
  4. Kantola v. State Farm InsuranceAshtabula Municipal Court · 1979
  5. Halterman v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1981

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. GoudeauTexas Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Adkins v. MeadorWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Miller v. LomanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. Etter v. Travelers Insurance CompaniesOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
  5. Bratton v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2015

16 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