Legal Opinion

Weemhoff v. Cincinnati Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1975No. 74-416PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.

Although the Court of Appeals allowed the “stacking” or adding together of medical payment pro*233visions, appellee has not contested that determination; hence, that issue is not before us. This appeal is limited to appellants’ contention that the limits of liability on each automobile within the uninsured motorist coverage may be “stacked.”

E. C. 3937.18, requiring the mandatory offering of uninsured motorist coverage, was enacted by the General Assembly in 1965 to protect persons injured in automobile accidents from losses which, because of the tortfeasor’s lack of liability coverage, would…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Abate v. Pioneer Mutual Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Curran v. State Automobile Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Allstate Insurance Company v. ZellarsTexas Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Pacific Indemnity Co. v. ThompsonWashington Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Wilma Irene Greer v. Associated Indemnity CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Federated American Insurance v. RaynesWashington Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Lopez Ex Rel. Estate of Lopez v. Foundation Reserve InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. VolkmannOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance v. LewisOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Pettid Ex Rel. Pettid v. EdwardsNebraska Supreme Court · 1976

12 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