Legal Opinion

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Webb

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 10, 1990No. 89-1265PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

This case requires a review of the proper construction to be given to the phrase “legally entitled to recover” as used in R.C. 3937.18(A), as well as the phrase within the policy here, “legally entitled to collect.” We hold that since Webb is not legally entitled to recover from Creekmore due to the fellow-employee immunity provided by R.C. 4123.741, Webb may not recover upon the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy issued him by State Farm. Thus, we must reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and overrule our prior holding in Thiel.

Prior to the court’s opinion in Thiel, this…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. York v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Kaiser v. StrallOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Thiel v. Allstate InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Nobles v. WolfOhio Supreme Court · 1990

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Herman v. KlopfleischOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Ohayon v. Safeco InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Otterberg v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2005
  4. Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Inc. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Kurent v. Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991

42 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