Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Elevators Mutual Insurance v. J. Patrick O'Flaherty's, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 24, 2010No. 2009-0321Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLundberg Stratton, J.

{¶ 23} I agree that the plain language of Crim.R. 11(B)(2) and Evid.R. 410(A) prohibits the use of convictions based on no-eontest pleas in an action for declaratory judgment for insurance coverage. However, I do not believe that the analysis ends there. We must consider the terms of the insurance contract. In this case, I believe that a person may waive the protections of Crim.R. 11(B)(2) and Evid.R. 410(A) by contract. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

{¶ 24} Here, the parties contracted for fire insurance but excluded coverage for “loss or damages caused directly or indirectly by” the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lichon v. American Universal InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1990
  2. White Co. v. Canton Transportation Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Usx Corporation v. Penn Central Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API