Legal Opinion
Stickel v. Excess Ins. Co. of America
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided November 22, 1939No. 27511 and 27512PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtZimmerman, J.
A construction of the contract of reinsurance is the first and most important matter arising in a decision of these cases. The pertinent provisions of the contract are as follows:
“Section I. The reinsurer [Excess Insurance Company] agrees to reinsure the company [Central Mutual Insurance Company] as respects all third party automobile public liability policies * * * except those hereinafter excluded, becoming effective while this contract is in force and agrees to repay any amounts of ultimate net loss which the company may pay in excess of the first five thousand dollars ($5,000) on account…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Morris & Co. v. Skandinavia InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Allemannia Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Baltimore Ex Rel. WolfeSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. PinkSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Hartzell Bros.Ohio Supreme Court · 1924
- Greenman v. General Reinsurance Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Gomolka v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Neff v. Cherokee Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1986
- Fontenot v. Marquette Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1971
- Melco System v. Receivers of Trans-America Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1958
- First National Bank of Kansas City v. HigginsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1962
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.