Legal Opinion

State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Rose

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 21, 1991No. 90-2399PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

The sole issue before us on certification from the federal district court is whether “the language in coverage A, liability coverage, as amended in endorsement 6890AW [1] [“endorsement”] [is] clear and unambiguous so as to limit all derivative death claims of John Rose to a single $50,000.00 recovery?” (Emphasis added.) For the reasons which follow, we answer this query in the affirmative.

The language in the endorsement (numbered 6890AW) which the parties agree controls the resolution of this issue is as follows:

“The amount of bodily injury liability coverage is shown on the declarations page…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Karabin v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Burris v. Grange Mutual CompaniesOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Faruque v. Provident Life & Accident InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Tomlinson v. SkolnikOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Wood v. ShepardOhio Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Savoie v. Grange Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Minor v. Allstate Ins. Co., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1996
  3. Professional Rental, Inc. v. Shelby InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. Red Head Brass, Inc. v. Buckeye Union InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1999
  5. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. LaMarrOhio Court of Appeals · 1993

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