Legal Opinion

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lightning Rod Mutual Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1997No. 1996-2516PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.

The issue in this case is whether Lightning Rod’s policy excluding coverage for operation of a vehicle carrying property “for a fee” covers an insured who is paid an hourly wage and is reimbursed for mileage for making deliveries but is not paid per delivery.

“[WJords and phrases used in an insurance policy must be given their natural and commonly accepted meaning.” Gomolka v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 166,167-168, 24 O.O.3d 274, 275, 436 N.E.2d 1347,1348. A “fee” is defined as “[a] recompense for an official or professional service or a charge or emolument or…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. King v. Nationwide InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Gomolka v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Lane v. Grange Mutual CompaniesOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. American Financial Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1968

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Clark v. ScarpelliOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. SartnoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Owens Corning v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. Of Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
  4. United National Insurance Company v. Sst Fitness CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
  5. Alstrin v. St. Paul Mercury InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2002

27 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