Hedrick v. Motorists Mutual Insurance

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the relevant contract term is an exclusionary provision and not an anti-stacking clause. However, I respectfully dissent from the holding that it was effective to preclude recovery under the facts of this case and the laws of Ohio.

The resolution of this appeal rests on an application of the clear mandate of Ohio’s General Assembly set forth in R.C. 3937.18(A). As the majority recognizes, this statute establishes a public policy consideration recognized by the legislature and this court that uninsured motorist coverage “* * * is designed to protect…