Legal Opinion

Snowden v. Hastings Mutual Insurance

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 17, 2008No. 06 MA 138PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Vukovich, Judge.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Hastings Mutual Insurance Company, appeals the decision of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, David Snowden. The trial court found that Hastings had a duty to defend David Snowden in Mahoning County Common Pleas case No. 03CV1774, Fares v. Snowden et al. The threshold issue before us is whether an insurance policy that contains an exclusion stating that “Personal Liability and Medical Payments to Others do not apply to ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ which may reasonably be expected…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Goldfuss v. DavidsonOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State ex rel. Parsons v. FlemingOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State v. ThomasOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. City of Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Motorists Mutual Insurance v. TrainorOhio Supreme Court · 1973

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Chiquita Brands Internatl., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. JTO, Inc. v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  3. Huskins v. HuskinsOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. Meyers Lake Sportsman's Club, Inc. v. Auto-Owners (Mut.) Ins. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API