Security Finance Co. v. Aetna Ins.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCorrigan, J.
The desideratum of the parties to the impasse raised by these insurance contracts requires our judicial answer as to whether the exclusionary provisions contained in the policies preclude recovery by plaintiff under the facts of this case.
It is clear that the exclusionary clause in question was intended, under certain conditions, to relieve defendants from liability where the operator of the vehicle used in transporting the coins leaves the vehicle unattended. It is likewise clear that if the theft of the coins from the vehicle had occurred in the parking lot where plaintiff’s agent parked…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Home Indemnity Co. v. Village of PlymouthOhio Supreme Court · 1945
- Munchick v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1965
- Sally Chain Stores, Inc. v. Ace Bonded Carriers, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1940
- Henry Gorman & Son, Inc. v. American Surety Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1965
3Cited by4 opinions
- Klika v. Indianapolis Life Insurance Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1982
- Knepper v. Travelers Insurance Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1977
- Ohio Casualty Insurance v. YobyOhio Court of Appeals · 1985
- Package Freight Express v. New Hampshire Insurance Group, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1978