Legal Opinion

Hower v. Motorists Mutual Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 11, 1992No. Nos. 92-34 and 92-277PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrogan, J.

The sole issue certified by the court of appeals is whether the “other insurance” provision in the Motorists policies is ambiguous and ineffective. In Curran v. State Auto. Ins. Co. (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 33, 54 O.O.2d 166, 266 N.E.2d 566, paragraph one of the syllabus, we held that where an insurer provides uninsured motorist protection as required by R.C. 3937.18, it may not avoid indemnification of its insured under that coverage by including in the insurance contract an “other insurance” clause which, if applied, would relieve the insurer from liability in circumstances where the insured…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gomolka v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Karabin v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Curran v. State Automobile Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Hill v. Allstate InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Dues v. HodgeOhio Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Savoie v. Grange Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Cartwright v. the Maryland Ins. GroupOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. Katz v. Ohio Insurance Guaranty Ass'nOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Merz v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., Ca2006-08-203 (5-14-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993

4 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