Financial Indemnity Co. v. Cargile
Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County
1Opinion of the CourtBettman, J.
This ease involves a determination of the effect of R. C. 3937.30 to 3937.39 on the nonrenewal of a ninety day automobile insurance policy. The controlling facts are not in dispute. On July 11, 1970, plaintiff insurer (here praying for a declaratory judgment) issued to de*104fendant insured a policy of automobile insurance including' uninsured motorist coverage. On its face the stated policy period was July 7,1970 to October 11,1970. On September 20th. the insurer mailed the insured a “Notice of Expiration and Renewal Order,” which recited:
“Your policy expires on the due date shown (10/11/70).…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Record Revolution No. 6 v. City of Parma, OhioDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1980
- Shqeir v. Equifax, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1982
- Alaska Public Employees Association v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1974
- State v. TurleyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1980
- Shaffer v. Mico Insurance Co.Akron Municipal Court · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.