Legal Opinion
Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Clark
North Dakota Supreme Court
Decided August 18, 1998No. Civil 980057PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SANDSTROM, Justice.
[¶ 1] Daniel Clark, Kelly Girodengo, and Maria Entzel have appealed a judgment declaring Ohio Casualty Insurance Company has no duty to defend or indemnify Daniel Clark in a pending lawsuit for the wrongful death of George Girodengo. We conclude there are no genuine issues of material fact about Daniel Clark’s intent in shooting George Girodengo. Daniel Clark’s killing of George Girodengo was an intentional act for which insurance coverage was excluded, and the issue of self defense is res judicata. We affirm.
I
[¶2] “Early on January 17, 1996, Daniel Clark shot George…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
- State v. OlanderNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
- Hofsommer v. Hofsommer Excavating, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. ReuterOregon Supreme Court · 1985
- Ideal Mutual Insurance Co. v. WinkerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1982
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Northfield Insurance v. Loving Home Care, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2004
- American Family Mutual Insurance v. SavickasIllinois Supreme Court · 2000
- Richter v. HouserNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
- Tibert v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
- Gepner v. Fujicolor Processing, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.