Akins v. Harco Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Akins v. Harco Insurance

106 Ohio St. 3d 41

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 27, 2005·No. No. 2004-1615·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal of Old Republic Insurance Company is accepted on Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 2} The discretionary appeal of Owners Insurance Company is not accepted.

{¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed insofar as it holds that extrinsic evidence may not be used to establish a valid offer of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of Hollon v. Clary, 104 Ohio St.3d 526, 2004-Ohio-6772, 820 N.E.2d 881.

Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

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

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal of Old Republic Insurance Company is accepted on Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 2} The discretionary appeal of Owners Insurance Company is not accepted.

{¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed insofar as it holds that extrinsic evidence may not be used to establish a valid offer of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of Hollon v. Clary, 104 Ohio St.3d 526, 2004-Ohio-6772, 820 N.E.2d 881.

Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

Akins v. Harco Insurance, 106 Ohio St. 3d 41 (Ohio 2005).

Pincite

106 Ohio St. 3d 41 (Akins v. Harco Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related