Legal Opinion
Lind v. State Automobile Mutual Ins.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 14, 1934No. 24207PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtZimmerman, J.
To recover in this action it is incumbent on the plaintiff, Lind, to show that Mersieh complied with the terms of the liability insurance policy, or that there was a waiver of such terms. Plaintiff stands in no better position than Mersieh in this respect. Stacey v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 114 Ohio St., 633, 151 N. E., 718.
That part of the policy with which the defendant claims Mersieh did not fully comply, thus defeating plaintiff’s suit, is as follows:
“The association will, at its own cost but subject to the limits expressed in the foregoing clauses, settle or defend any claim…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Concordia Ins. Co. of Milwaukee v. School Dist. No. 98 of Payne Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Stacey v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1926
- Lee v. Casualty Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. RandallOhio Supreme Court · 1932
- Gough v. HalperinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Bruins v. AndersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1951
- Yannuzzi v. United States Casualty Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1955
- March v. Snake River Mutual Fire Insurance Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1965
- McCruter v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.