Legal Opinion

Csulik v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 16, 2000No. 98-772PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

We hold that the phrase “due by law” in the Nationwide policy regarding UM/UIM coverage is ambiguous, susceptible of more than one interpretation, and that the ambiguity must be construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured.

The phrase at issue in this case is:

“We will pay compensatory damages, including derivative claims, which are due by law to you or a relative from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury suffered by you or a relative.” (Emphasis added.) The Nationwide policy carried a virtually identical clause for…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. King v. Nationwide InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1988

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Ohayon v. Safeco InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Modroo v. Nationwide Mutual Fire InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Ohayon v. Safeco Ins. Co. of IllinoisOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Csulik v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Friemoth v. Fruehauf Trailer Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2001

13 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