Legal Opinion

Sauer v. Crews (Slip Opinion)

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 2, 2014No. 2013-0283PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLanzinger, J.

{¶ 1} In this case, we are again asked to consider the language of an insurance policy. Specifically, the question is, Should ambiguity be determined only after the language at issue is examined in light of the overall context of the policy? We answer in the affirmative, i.e., that in determining whether a policy provision is ambiguous, courts must consider the context in which the specific language of the provision is used. Based on this rule, we conclude that the policy provision in this case is not ambiguous and does not provide coverage.

I. Case Background

{¶ 2} On November 24, 2006, Julia…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. King v. Nationwide InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Hybud Equipment Corp. v. Sphere Drake InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Gomolka v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. City of Sharonville v. American Employers InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Lager v. Miller-GonzalezOhio Supreme Court · 2008

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Infield v. Westfield Ins. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023
  2. Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2022
  3. Buehrer v. MeyersOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
  4. Raudins v. Hobbs, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County2018
  5. Sarrough v. BudzarOhio Court of Appeals · 2015

26 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