Bowser v. Nationwide Ins. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Bowser v. Nationwide Ins. Co.

1997 Ohio 50, 77 Ohio St. 3d 372

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 1997

Docket1996-1424

StatusPublished

This text of 1997 Ohio 50 (Bowser v. Nationwide Ins. Co.) 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

Bowser v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 1997 Ohio 50, 77 Ohio St. 3d 372 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 77 Ohio St.3d 372.]

BOWSER ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS, V. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE. [Cite as Bowser v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 1997-Ohio-50.] Insurance—Automobile liability—Each person covered by an uninsured motorist policy who is asserting a claim for loss of consortium has a separate claim subject to a separate per person policy limit—Provision in insurance policy that reaches a contrary result is unenforceable. (No. 96-1424—Submitted December 11, 1996—Decided January 29, 1997.) APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA-15251. __________________ Froelich & Weprin, L.P.A., and Gary L. Froelich, for appellees and cross- appellants. Jenks, Surdyk & Cowdrey Co., L.P.A., and Edward Dowd, for appellant and cross-appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is denied. {¶ 2} The discretionary cross-appeal is allowed. {¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals on cross-appeal is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the authority of Schaefer v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 553, 668 N.E.2d 913. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 77 Ohio St.3d 372.]

BOWSER ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS, V. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE. [Cite as Bowser v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 1997-Ohio-50.] Insurance—Automobile liability—Each person covered by an uninsured motorist policy who is asserting a claim for loss of consortium has a separate claim subject to a separate per person policy limit—Provision in insurance policy that reaches a contrary result is unenforceable. (No. 96-1424—Submitted December 11, 1996—Decided January 29, 1997.) APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA-15251. __________________ Froelich & Weprin, L.P.A., and Gary L. Froelich, for appellees and cross- appellants. Jenks, Surdyk & Cowdrey Co., L.P.A., and Edward Dowd, for appellant and cross-appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is denied. {¶ 2} The discretionary cross-appeal is allowed. {¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals on cross-appeal is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the authority of Schaefer v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 553, 668 N.E.2d 913. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Ohio 50, 77 Ohio St. 3d 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowser-v-nationwide-ins-co-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack