Bakos v. Insura Prop. & Cas. Ins.

Ohio Supreme Court

Bakos v. Insura Prop. & Cas. Ins.

688 N.E.2d 1044, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1418, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 383

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 21, 1998

Docket97-2431

StatusPublished

This text of 688 N.E.2d 1044 (Bakos v. Insura Prop. & Cas. Ins.) 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

Bakos v. Insura Prop. & Cas. Ins., 688 N.E.2d 1044, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1418, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 383 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Cuyahoga App. No. 71949. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the question certified on page 4 of the court of appeals’ Order Certifying a Conflict dated November 3,1997:

“When an insurer denies the claim of an insured, for uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits, as compensation for personal injury, does that denial constitute a material breach of the insurance contract, on the part of the insurer, and, consequently, relieve the insured from the contractual obligation to notify and/or obtain the consent of its insurer, before settling with a tortfeasor, who caused the personal injury, or a tortfeasor’s insurer?”

The conflict case is Prater v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (May 20, 1996), Clermont App. No. CA95-12-087, unreported, 1996 WL 263635.

Moyer, C.J., and F.E. Sweeney, J., dissent.

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

Cuyahoga App. No. 71949. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the question certified on page 4 of the court of appeals’ Order Certifying a Conflict dated November 3,1997:

“When an insurer denies the claim of an insured, for uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits, as compensation for personal injury, does that denial constitute a material breach of the insurance contract, on the part of the insurer, and, consequently, relieve the insured from the contractual obligation to notify and/or obtain the consent of its insurer, before settling with a tortfeasor, who caused the personal injury, or a tortfeasor’s insurer?”

The conflict case is Prater v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (May 20, 1996), Clermont App. No. CA95-12-087, unreported, 1996 WL 263635.

Moyer, C.J., and F.E. Sweeney, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

688 N.E.2d 1044, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1418, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bakos-v-insura-prop-cas-ins-ohio-1998.