Legal Opinion

Sexton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 1982No. 81-1092PublishedCited by 81 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, C. J.

The issue presented for our determination is whether the limitations in the uninsured motorist coverage in this policy are valid under R. C. 3937.18. The effect of the policy provisions set forth above is to limit coverage to recovery for bodily injury or death sustained by an insured as defined in the policy.

State Farm contends that its policy limitations are valid and that Sexton can not recover because he was not personally injured and his daughter, who sustained the bodily injury, did not reside with him. According to the policy definitions, an insured was not injured and, thus, no…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Abate v. Pioneer Mutual Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Ady v. West American InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Curran v. State Automobile Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Bartlett v. Nationwide Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1973
  5. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. SellersNebraska Supreme Court · 1971

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

3Cited by81 opinions

  1. Ross v. Farmers Insurance Group of CompaniesOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Clark v. ScarpelliOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Moore v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Lager v. Miller-GonzalezOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  5. State Farm Automobile Insurance v. AlexanderOhio Supreme Court · 1992

76 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