Legal Opinion

Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 27, 2002No. 2001-1843PublishedCited by 91 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.

*187{¶ 1} This appeal requires us to consider whether a provider of underinsured or uninsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage may be released from its obligation to provide coverage due to the failure of a claimant to notify the insurer of a potential claim prior to settlement with and full release of the tortfeasor who caused the injury giving rise to the potential claim. The motor vehicle insurance policy at issue requires that the insurer be given prompt notice of a UIM claim and requires the consent of the insurer prior to settlement. For the reasons that follow, we determine that the insurer is…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Brakeman v. Potomac Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Hernandez v. Gulf Group LloydsTexas Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Longworth v. Van HoutenNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1988
  4. Miller v. DiltsIndiana Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Thiringer v. American Motors InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1978

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by91 opinions

  1. Westfield Insurance v. GalatisOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Hasper v. Center Mutual Insurance Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. GreenUtah Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Fifth Third Mortgage Company v. Chicago Title Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
  5. Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. AdkinsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2004

86 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