Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Insurance v. ACE INA Holdings, Inc.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 19, 2007No. Nos. C-060384 and C-060385PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Mark P. Painter, Presiding Judge.

{¶ 1} We address a lost-policy insurance-coverage quarrel. We have to admit struggling with the issues' — -we even had one issue rebriefed by the parties. After much gnashing of teeth, we affirm. The aggregate policy limits applied annually; and the “deemer” clause was ineffective to limit liability on these facts.

J. The Parties and the Policies

{¶ 2} An excess insurer, plaintiff-appellant and cross-appellee The Cincinnati Insurance Company (“CIC”), sued the primary insurer, defendant-appellee and cross-appellant ACE INA Holdings (f.k.a. CIGNA Property &…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Doe v. ShafferOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. King v. Nationwide InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Zoppo v. Homestead InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Insurance Co. v. DutcherSupreme Court of the United States · 1877

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Andrea Perry v. Allstate Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2020
  2. Ma v. Cincinnati Children's Hosp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020
  3. William Powell Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020
  4. William Powell Co. v. Onebeacon Ins. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2016
  5. Groen v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2012

11 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