Legal Opinion

Hart v. Republic Mutual Ins.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 20, 1949No. 31673PublishedCited by 77 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWeygandt, C. J.

Counsel are agreed that this case presents a question of first impression in this court.

Where, as here, a liability insurance company reserves “the right to settle any claim or suit and to make such investigation or negotiation as may be deemed expedient by the company,” what duty does it owe in defending the insured? Is it liable for failure to exercise ordinary care in settling or refusing to settle claims? Or is it liable only in the event that it fails to act in good faith?

Counsel are agreed that there is a diversity of authority on the subject and that the majority rule imposes liability…

2Cited by77 opinions

  1. Peggy Greenberg and Pamela Rossmann, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. The Life Insurance Company of VirginiaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
  2. Hoskins v. Aetna Life InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Toy v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  4. Zoppo v. Homestead InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Tokles & Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemnity Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992

72 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