Aetna Life Insurance v. Hussey

Ohio Supreme Court

Aetna Life Insurance v. Hussey

595 N.E.2d 942, 64 Ohio St. 3d 1207

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 12, 1992

DocketNo. 91-219

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 595 N.E.2d 942 (Aetna Life Insurance v. Hussey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aetna Life Insurance v. Hussey, 595 N.E.2d 942, 64 Ohio St. 3d 1207 (Ohio 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Holmes, J.

This matter comes before the court by way of the “Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing and Issuance of Mandate,” seeking clarification of this court’s prior opinion herein. Basically, the motion seeks the clarification of how the balance of the insurance policy proceeds over and above the amounts awarded by this court to Kelly Rae Hussey for her education shall be distributed.

Admittedly, there is confusion within the language found in the opinion that “after Kelly has used the proceeds of the insurance for her education, any unused funds will be available to Lawrence in accordance with the terms of Raymond’s trust.” 63 Ohio St.3d 640, 645, 590 N.E.2d 724, 728. Obviously, other than the constructive trust pronounced by this court for Kelly’s education, there is no trust. It should have been stated in the opinion that any balance of the insurance funds remaining after Kelly’s education must be distributed to the named beneficiary within the policy, that being Marcia S. Hussey, surviving spouse of Raymond W. Hussey, Jr.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.

Resnick, J., dissents and adheres to her prior dissenting opinion in Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hussey (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 640, 647, 590 N.E.2d 724, 729.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Holmes, J.

This matter comes before the court by way of the “Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing and Issuance of Mandate,” seeking clarification of this court’s prior opinion herein. Basically, the motion seeks the clarification of how the balance of the insurance policy proceeds over and above the amounts awarded by this court to Kelly Rae Hussey for her education shall be distributed.

Admittedly, there is confusion within the language found in the opinion that “after Kelly has used the proceeds of the insurance for her education, any unused funds will be available to Lawrence in accordance with the terms of Raymond’s trust.” 63 Ohio St.3d 640, 645, 590 N.E.2d 724, 728. Obviously, other than the constructive trust pronounced by this court for Kelly’s education, there is no trust. It should have been stated in the opinion that any balance of the insurance funds remaining after Kelly’s education must be distributed to the named beneficiary within the policy, that being Marcia S. Hussey, surviving spouse of Raymond W. Hussey, Jr.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.

Resnick, J., dissents and adheres to her prior dissenting opinion in Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hussey (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 640, 647, 590 N.E.2d 724, 729.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

595 N.E.2d 942, 64 Ohio St. 3d 1207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-life-insurance-v-hussey-ohio-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack