2008 YEAR IN REVIEW - INSURANCE CASES
* Please click on the case name in order to link to the full opinion of the Court.
LAGER V. GONZALEZ
Uninsured Motorist Coverage
There is no recognizable difference between the terms "for bodily injury" and "because of bodily injury" in a policy of uninsured motorist coverage. Under the well-settled principles of contract construction in Ohio, these phrases do not create any ambiguity upon which a reasonable interpretation would allow coverage.
The Court of Appeals decision is REVERSED.
ANGEL V. REED
Two Year Limitation on Filing Claim for Uninsured Motorist
VALID
The 2 year notification of claim provision in uninsured motorist coverage of automobile policy is valid and enforceable. The time period begins to run at the time of the accident. Although, the Court leaves open the ability to present factors that relate to when the insured knew or should have known that an uninsured motorist situation was present.
However, if the insured can merely contact tortfeasor's identified insurer (contained in accident report) to ascertain if coverage exists and/or the limits of that coverage, then the time period under the 2 year limitation period begins to run immediately.
ADVENT, EXR. V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
S.B. 97 Amendements to R.C. 3937.18 and R.C. 3937.31.
Certified Question: Can the S.B. No. 97 Amendments to R.C. 3937.18 be incorporated into an insurance policy during a two-year guarantee period that commenced subsequent to the S.B. 267 Amendments to R.C. 3937.18 and R.C. 3937.31, but prior to the S.B. No. 97 Amendments?
Answer to Certified Question: "YES."
No comments:
Post a Comment