Legal Opinion

Hybud Equipment Corp. v. Sphere Drake Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 16, 1992No. 91-641PublishedCited by 288 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChristley, J.

In their appeal before this court, the three insureds, IEL, Hybud and Budoff, have raised four issues concerning their right to a jury trial and the sufficiency of the damages award. In its cross-appeal, Sphere Drake has also raised a number of issues, the majority of which pertain to the proper interpretation of the language in the two policies.

*661For the reasons which follow, this court finds that it is not necessary for us to address the majority of these issues, since the determination of the following single issue will control the outcome in this case. Specifically, we conclude that Sphere…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Waste Management of Carolinas, Inc. v. Peerless InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  2. Gomolka v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Upjohn Co. v. New Hampshire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Belleville Industries, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
  5. Karabin v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by288 opinions

  1. State v. BethelOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. City of Sharonville v. American Employers InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  3. American Motorists Insurance v. ARTRA Group, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1995
  4. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Ohio Government Risk Management Plan v. HarrisonOhio Supreme Court · 2007

283 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