Legal Opinion · Dissent

Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance v. Lewis

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 1984No. 83-1202Published

1DissentHolmes, J.

Although I concur in that part of the majority opinion dealing with the issue of stacking medical expense coverage, I must dissent as to the other issues.

The law as pronounced in Weemhoff v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (1975), 41 Ohio *162St. 2d 231 [70 O.O.2d 248], remains valid today as applied to insurance policies containing uninsured motorist coverage. The syllabus in Weemhoff clearly, and soundly, proclaiméd the right of an insurance company to set forth terms within its policies which provide a limitation on liability to a certain amount “per person” on each vehicle where numerous automobiles are…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Sexton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Arguello v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1979
  3. Moomaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1974
  4. Weemhoff v. Cincinnati InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  5. In Re Arbitration Between Mary & William HarrisNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1976

3 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