Legal Opinion
Munchick v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 23, 1965No. 39141PublishedCited by 61 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.
The question raised by this appeal is whether the loss of plaintiffs’ motor vehicle through “larceny by trick” was within the coverage of the contract of insurance issued by defendant to plaintiffs.
The comprehensive clause of the insurance policy provides for payment for loss of the automobile except that caused by *305collision. Other types of loss, none of which apply in this case, are expressly excluded from coverage. Certain causes of loss, including theft and larceny are specifically listed as being covered.
“A contract of insurance prepared and phrased by the insurer is to be construed…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rothman v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1938
- Toms v. Hartford Fire Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945
- Granger v. New Jersey InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Royal Insurance v. JackOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- Milwaukee Mechanics' Ins. v. HeffernanOhio Supreme Court · 1929
3Cited by61 opinions
- Olmstead v. Lumbermens Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
- Buckeye Union Insurance v. Liberty Solvents & Chemicals Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1984
- American Financial Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1968
- Essex House v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1975
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. ReddickOhio Supreme Court · 1974
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.