Moore v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
The central issue for our determination in this case is whether the insurance policy limitation enforced by the courts below is valid under Ohio law. In order for a limitation on uninsured motorist coverage to be valid it must not be *29contrary to the coverage mandated by R.C. 3937.18(A). Sexton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 431, 433, 23 O.O.3d 385, 386, 433 N.E.2d 555, 558; Martin v. Midwestern Group Ins. Co. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 478, 639 N.E.2d 438, paragraph two of the syllabus. R.C. 3937.18 sets forth the minimum uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage that…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Savoie v. Grange Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Ross v. Farmers Insurance Group of CompaniesOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Martin v. Midwestern Group InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Columbus-Suburban Coach Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1969
- Curran v. State Automobile Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by100 opinions
- Stickney v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
- Snyder v. American Family InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- Wallace v. BalintOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Stickney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
95 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.