Hendershot v. Ferkel
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
The ground of such second reversal is, in short, that the defendant Ferkel, having no knowledge of the pendency of the present action, could not give notice thereof to the defendant insurance company; that the plaintiff, Anna L. Hendershot, was bound to give such notice; and that the notice given by her was not reasonable.
The sole question before this court now is whether that ground of error is well-founded.
The insurance policy involved, which was taken out in the name of the father, William Ferkel, on his automobile, contained the following provision:
“In the event of an accident involving…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Luntz v. SternOhio Supreme Court · 1939
- Stacey v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1926
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. RandallOhio Supreme Court · 1932
- Fowler v. State Automobile Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944
3Cited by4 opinions
- Faulkner v. William Nieves y Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1954
- Keith v. LutzweitOhio Court of Appeals · 1957
- Walker v. BuckOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
- Edison Faulkner v. NievesSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1954