Buckeye Union Ins. v. New England Ins.

Ohio Supreme Court

Buckeye Union Ins. v. New England Ins.

699 N.E.2d 94, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1421, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 2469

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 4, 1998

Docket98-1268

StatusPublished

This text of 699 N.E.2d 94 (Buckeye Union Ins. v. New England 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

Buckeye Union Ins. v. New England Ins., 699 N.E.2d 94, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1421, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 2469 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Certified State Law Question, No. 97-3856. On review of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII(6) and on motion for admission pro hac vice of Louis G. Adolfsen and S. Dwight Stevens. The motion for admission pro hac vice is granted and the court will answer the following questions found at page 4 of the Certification Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit:

“1. When an insurance company is found to be guilty of ‘bad faith’ with ‘actual malice’ because it failed to settle a tort case against its insured, does such conduct constitute the type of intentional tort that is uninsurable under Ohio law?

“2. Does such a finding of bad faith with actual malice collaterally estop Buckeye [Union Insurance Company] from litigating this ease?

“3. Under Ohio law does an exclusion in an insurance policy barring coverage for personal dishonesty, fraudulent breach of trust, intention to deceive, or intent to defraud embrace an insurer’s bad faith with actual malice caused by its failure to settle a tort case?”

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

Certified State Law Question, No. 97-3856. On review of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII(6) and on motion for admission pro hac vice of Louis G. Adolfsen and S. Dwight Stevens. The motion for admission pro hac vice is granted and the court will answer the following questions found at page 4 of the Certification Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit:

“1. When an insurance company is found to be guilty of ‘bad faith’ with ‘actual malice’ because it failed to settle a tort case against its insured, does such conduct constitute the type of intentional tort that is uninsurable under Ohio law?

“2. Does such a finding of bad faith with actual malice collaterally estop Buckeye [Union Insurance Company] from litigating this ease?

“3. Under Ohio law does an exclusion in an insurance policy barring coverage for personal dishonesty, fraudulent breach of trust, intention to deceive, or intent to defraud embrace an insurer’s bad faith with actual malice caused by its failure to settle a tort case?”

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

699 N.E.2d 94, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1421, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 2469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckeye-union-ins-v-new-england-ins-ohio-1998.