Legal Opinion

Olmstead v. Lumbermens Mutual Ins.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1970No. 69-343PublishedCited by 93 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.

In argument and in brief counsel discuss and invite our attention to certain clauses of the insurance contract which spawn a number of barriers which must be hurdled by one in search of the intent of the parties. In the case at bar, only one is pivotal, i. e., what is a “collapse.”

Plaintiffs urge that the word “collapse” is reasonably open to different interpretations and requires construction most favorable to the insureds and against the insurer or creator of the language. Mumaw v. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co., 97 Ohio St. 1, paragraph one of the syllabus; Great American Mut. Indem. Co.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Blosser v. EnderlinOhio Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Munchick v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. RoyalSupreme Court of Alabama · 1959
  4. Skelly v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  5. Great American Mutual Indemnity Co. v. JonesOhio Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by93 opinions

  1. Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Skivolocki v. East Ohio Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Gomolka v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Pure Tech Systems, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
  5. Murray v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1998

88 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