Legal Opinion

Dues v. Hodge

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 6, 1988No. Nos. 87-271 and 87-284PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

The principal issue before us today is whether the anti-stacking language in the uninsured motorist provision of the automobile insurance policy before us meets the applicable requirements to prevent stacking of coverage.

R.C. 3937.18(G) provides:

“Any automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance that includes coverages offered under division (A) of this section may include terms and conditions that preclude stacking of such coverages.”

An insurance company may, pursuant to R.C. 3937.18(G), preclude the stacking of uninsured motorist coverage. The antistacking provision,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Karabin v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Sexton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance v. LewisOhio Supreme Court · 1984

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Savoie v. Grange Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Tomlinson v. SkolnikOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Wood v. ShepardOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Schaefer v. Allstate InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State Farm Automobile Insurance v. RoseOhio Supreme Court · 1991

37 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