Legal Opinion

Motorists Mutual Insurance v. Dandy-Jim, Inc.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 14, 2009No. 92023PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Christine T. McMonagle, Judge.

{¶ 1} This is an insurance-coverage case. We are asked to decide whether the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff-appellant, Motorists Mutual Insurance Company (“Motorists”), was obligated to defend its insured, Dandy-Jim, Inc., in a suit alleging a violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) due to the transmission of unsolicited facsimile advertisements. We find no error and affirm.

Background

{¶ 2} The TCPA, Section 227, Title 47, U.S.Code et seq., protects the privacy interests of persons by placing restrictions on unsolicited,…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Kelly v. Medical Life InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Guman Bros. FarmOhio Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Charvat v. NMP, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2011
  2. Penzer v. Transportation Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 2010
  3. Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. LayIllinois Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Columbia Casualty Co. v. Hiar Holding, L.L.C.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2013
  5. State Farm General Insurance v. JT's Frames, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010

14 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