Buckeye Union Ins. v. Cooperman
Ohio Court of Appeals
1DissentWhiteside, J.
While I concur with the majority finding that the allegedly uninsured automobile involved in this case was not a “hit-and-run automobile” as defined in the policy, I must dissent because I find that such determination is not dispositive of the issues.
To constitute a hit-and-run autombile, the policy requires “physical contact of such automobile with the insured or with an automobile which the insured is occupying at the time of the accident.” In this case there was no physical contact. Since there was no physical contact, the provisos included in the definition have no application, and there…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Abate v. Pioneer Mutual Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
- Curran v. State Automobile Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971
- Home Indemnity Co. v. Village of PlymouthOhio Supreme Court · 1945
- Munchick v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1965
- Toms v. Hartford Fire Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.