Dicke v. Safeco Ins. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Dicke v. Safeco Ins. Co.

2001 Ohio 65, 91 Ohio St. 3d 334

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 11, 2001

Docket2001-0343

StatusPublished

This text of 2001 Ohio 65 (Dicke v. Safeco 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

Dicke v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2001 Ohio 65, 91 Ohio St. 3d 334 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 91 Ohio St.3d 334.]

DICKE ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. [Cite as Dicke v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2001-Ohio-65.] Insurance—Homeowner’s insurance policy that provides limited liability coverage for vehicles not subject to motor vehicle registration is not a motor vehicle liability policy and is not subject to the requirement of former R.C. 3937.18 to offer uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on authority of Davidson v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. (No. 01-343—Submitted March 28, 2001—Decided April 11, 2001.) CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. 1-2000-64. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Davidson v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 262, ___ N.E.2d ___. MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. DOUGLAS, J., dissents. __________________ Gooding, Huffman, Kelley & Becker, L.L.C., T. Blain Brook II and Lawrence A. Huffman, for appellants. __________________

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

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 91 Ohio St.3d 334.]

DICKE ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. [Cite as Dicke v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2001-Ohio-65.] Insurance—Homeowner’s insurance policy that provides limited liability coverage for vehicles not subject to motor vehicle registration is not a motor vehicle liability policy and is not subject to the requirement of former R.C. 3937.18 to offer uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on authority of Davidson v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. (No. 01-343—Submitted March 28, 2001—Decided April 11, 2001.) CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. 1-2000-64. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Davidson v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 262, ___ N.E.2d ___. MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. DOUGLAS, J., dissents. __________________ Gooding, Huffman, Kelley & Becker, L.L.C., T. Blain Brook II and Lawrence A. Huffman, for appellants. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Ohio 65, 91 Ohio St. 3d 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dicke-v-safeco-ins-co-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack