St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The issue presented in this action is whether the court of appeals properly determined the extent of appellant’s liability under the terms of the surety bond. For the reasons that follow, we answer in the affirmative and uphold the decision of the court of appeals.
*18Our analysis of the cause sub judice centers around an interpretation of the relevant language of the surety bond. The bond provides that if the principal pays compensation and benefits to its employees as required under the workers’ compensation laws, the obligation of the surety is null and void subject to the following conditions:
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Industrial Commission v. KamrathOhio Supreme Court · 1928
- Roseborough v. N.L. IndustriesOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Cooper Bus Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1927
- Madison Natl. Bank v. WeberOhio Supreme Court · 1927
3Cited by8 opinions
- Gary Moderalli Excavating, Inc. v. Trimat Constr., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
- American Insurance v. Bureau of Workers' CompensationOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
- In Re Farley, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 1999
- Thomas Steel, Inc. v. Wilson Bennett, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1998
- McWane, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of MarylandCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.