Legal Opinion
Shearer v. Motorists Mutual Insurance
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided January 4, 1978No. 77-3PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPotter, J.
The appellant’s sole proposition of law is as follows:
“Insurance contract provisions which reduce the *4amount of recovery of damages under the uninsured motorist protection clause therein by the amount of expenses for medical services (paid or payable under the medical payments portion of said policy) are valid, enforceable contractual provisions which may be properly invoked by the insurer. The trial court erred by overruling defendant’s motion for summary judgment and in granting plaintiffs’ motion [s] for summary judgment.”
The basic question presented by this appeal and as presented to the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Abate v. Pioneer Mutual Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
- Stephens v. Allied Mutual Insurance CompanyNebraska Supreme Court · 1968
- Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- Pryor v. WebberOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- Curran v. State Automobile Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Ady v. West American InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Kish v. Central National Insurance GroupOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Tomlinson v. SkolnikOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Sexton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. GraceOhio Supreme Court · 2009
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.