Legal Opinion

Yurista v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 1985No. Nos. 84-1166 and 84-1890PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.

The issue these cases present is whether an insured can recover under an uninsured motorist provision in an automobile liability insurance policy which, as to “hit-and-run” vehicles, requires physical contact between the unidentified vehicle and the insured or the vehicle he is occupying at the time of the accident, when no such physical contact occurs at the time of said accident.

This issue was addressed and answered by this court in Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Reddick (1974), 37 Ohio St. 2d 119 [66 O.O.2d 87], where we considered a similar hit-and-run provision in an automobile liability…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Marshall v. AaronOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. ReddickOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  3. State ex rel. Wells v. HennesseyOhio Supreme Court · 1974

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Girgis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. L.K.I. Holdings, Inc. v. TynerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. Muncy v. American Select InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  4. Estate of Baxter v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1992
  5. Girgis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996

12 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