Legal Opinion

Cascioli v. Central Mutual Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1983No. 82-287PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Per curiam

The issues presented in this case, as posited by appellants, relate to the scope of an insurance agent’s apparent authority to bind an insurer pursuant to R.C. 3905.01.2

The rule of apparent authority, as set forth in 1 Restatement of the Law of Agency 2d (1958) 375, Section 159, is as follows:

“A disclosed or partially disclosed principal is subject to liability upon contracts made by an agent acting within his apparent authority if made in proper form and with the understanding that the apparent principal is a party. The rules as to the liability of a principal for authorized acts, are…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Miller v. Wick Building Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Armco, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. State v. KalishOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Master Consolidated Corp. v. BancOhio National BankOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Shover v. Cordis Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Richard Olsen v. Gerald T. McFaul SheriffCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
  5. Egan v. National Distillers & Chemical Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986

34 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