Legal Opinion

Schumacher v. Kreiner

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 2000No. 99-245PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

The principal issue in this case is whether the insurance policy-covering Schumacher’s truck contained UM coverage by operation of law pursuant to R.C. 3937.18. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Motorists provided automobile insurance to Relay Express without offering UM coverage, that Relay Express did not expressly reject UM coverage, and, therefore, that the policy covering Schumacher’s truck contained UM coverage by operation of law. Accordingly, we conclude that summary judgment was improperly granted.

R.C. 3937.18(A) provides that “[n]o automobile liability or motor vehicle…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Gyori v. Johnston Coca-Cola Bottling Group, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Snyder v. American Family InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Linko v. Indemn. Ins. Co. of N. Am.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Schumacher v. KreinerOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Comella v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2001
  5. Turek v. VaughnOhio Court of Appeals · 2003

10 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