Legal Opinion
Tomlinson v. Skolnik
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 28, 1989No. Nos. 88-388 and 88-543PublishedCited by 84 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
The central issue in this case is whether a claim for loss of services and consortium constitutes a separate claim for “bodily injury” within the liability coverage provided in Buckeye Union’s policy. For the reasons which follow, we hold that loss of consortium is not a separate “bodily injury” and thus reverse the court of appeals.
As we construe the policy language at issue here, we do so utilizing the long-standing rules of construction and interpretation applicable to contracts generally. Gomolka v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 166, 167, 24 O.O. 3d 274, 275, 436 N. E.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Gomolka v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Karabin v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Hershberger v. Akron City HospitalOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Clouston v. Remlinger Oldsmobile Cadillac, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. ReddickOhio Supreme Court · 1974
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by84 opinions
- Hybud Equipment Corp. v. Sphere Drake InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Fox v. Parker Hannifin Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- Gearing v. Nationwide InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Geico v. Valentine FetisoffCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1992
- Campbell v. PMI Food Equipment Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
79 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.