Luntz v. Stern
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.
This proceeding is instituted by the judgment creditors pursuant to the provisions of Sections 9510-3 and 9510-4, General Code, to enforce the right of subrogation thereby 'conferred upon them. The purpose and- effect of this statute is to afford the injured party direct and prompt benefit of the policy of the insured. It is well settled, however, that such statutory provisions do not and could not have the effect of placing the injured person in a favored position contrary to the terms of the policy. He succeeded to only such rights as the assured had against the com pany. The indemnity…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Coleman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Lorando v. GethroMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Allegretto v. Oregon Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1932
- Stacey v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1926
- American Automobile Insurance v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. CochraneOhio Supreme Court · 1951
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. ArghyrisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1949
- Knott v. Revolution Software, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
- Conold v. SternOhio Supreme Court · 1941
- Bolling v. Clevepak Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1984
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.