Legal Opinion
Physicians Insurance v. Swanson
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided April 3, 1991No. 89-1900PublishedCited by 76 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.
The issue presented in this case is the application of a provision in a contract of insurance excluding coverage for injuries expected or intended by the insured. We begin our analysis by reviewing the language of the two provisions involved.
The PICO insurance policy issued to appellants contains the following:
“Part I, Exclusions to Part G and Part H
“1. Part G, Personal Liability Coverage and Part H, Medical Payments to Others does [sic] not apply to bodily injury or properly damage:
“a) which is expected or intended by the insured[.]”
Appellants’ policy with Cincinnati states as follows:
“PART…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance v. AbernathyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a Corporation v. Ruby WorthingtonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1968
- Eisenman v. HORNBERGERSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- Colonial Penn Insurance v. HartCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
- Farmers Ins. Group v. SessionsIdaho Supreme Court · 1980
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by76 opinions
- Gearing v. Nationwide InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- American Family Insurance Co. v. WalserSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- Lewis v. Allstate Ins. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1998
- North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. StoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
- Allstate Insurance v. CampbellOhio Supreme Court · 2010
71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.