Legal Opinion

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Reddick

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 1974No. 73-520PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.

It is appellants’ contention that under the interpretation placed upon the phrase “physical contact” by the insurance company, the uninsured motorist provision contained in the policy is contrary to and violates the public policy of this state as indicated by the adoption of R. C. 3937.18. That statute requires insurers selling automobile liability insurance in Ohio to offer coverage for injuries sustained through the operation of motor vehicles by uninsured motorists. Appellants assert that the phrase “physical contact,” as used in the policy, is unclear and «apbiguous. They urge that a…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Abate v. Pioneer Mutual Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Olmstead v. Lumbermens Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Curran v. State Automobile Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Amidzich v. Charter Oak Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Bartlett v. Nationwide Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1973

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

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Karabin v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Tomlinson v. SkolnikOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1984
  4. Biggs v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1977
  5. Girgis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1996

43 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