Legal Opinion

PIE Mutual Insurance v. Ohio Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1993No. Nos. 91-2392 and 91-2399PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

This case presents for our consideration the extent of OIGA’s liability under R.C. Chapter 3955.2 The central issue is whether OIGA is required to reimburse two insurance carriers for a pro-rata share of amounts the insurers paid to settle a medical malpractice action.

I

At the outset, it is important to recognize the General Assembly’s purpose behind the enactment of R.C. Chapter 3955, the Ohio Insurance Guaranty Association Act (the “Act”). To this effect, former R.C. 3955.03 specifically stated:

“The purposes of sections 3955.01 to 3955.20, inclusive, of the Revised Code are to provide a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pang v. MinchOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State v. JonesOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Maryland Casualty Co. v. GoughOhio Supreme Court · 1946

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Lake Hospital System, Inc. v. Ohio Insurance Guaranty Ass'nOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth District Court of AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth Dist. Court of AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Coburn v. Auto-Owners InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
  5. Hudson Environmental v. NJ PLIGANew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2004

13 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