Frisch v. CNA Commercial Ins. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Frisch v. CNA Commercial Ins. Co.

792 N.E.2d 199, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1511

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 30, 2003

Docket2003- 0840

StatusPublished

This text of 792 N.E.2d 199 (Frisch v. CNA Commercial 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

Frisch v. CNA Commercial Ins. Co., 792 N.E.2d 199, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1511 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Seneca App. Nos. 13-02-36 and 13-02-40, 2003-0hio-1574. Discretionary appeal allowed, cause consolidated with 2003-0981, Frisch v. CNA Commercial Ins. Co., Seneca App. Nos. 13-02-36 and 13-02^40, 2003-Ohio-1574, causes held for the decision in 2002-0579, Burkhart v. CNA Ins. Co., Stark [1512]*1512App. No. 2001CA00265, 2002-0hio-903, and briefing schedule stayed.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., concur. Pfeifer, J., concurs but would also hold for the decision in 2002-0932, Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, Summit App. No. 20784, 2002-0hio-1502. F.E. Sweeney, J., concurs but would not hold for the decision in Burkhart. O’Donnell, J., concurs in part, would allow on Proposition of Law No. I and hold for Burkhart, and would allow on Proposition of Law No. Ill and hold for Galatis. O’Connor, J., concurs in part and would allow on Proposition of Law No. I only and hold for Burkhart. Resnick, J., dissents.

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

Seneca App. Nos. 13-02-36 and 13-02-40, 2003-0hio-1574. Discretionary appeal allowed, cause consolidated with 2003-0981, Frisch v. CNA Commercial Ins. Co., Seneca App. Nos. 13-02-36 and 13-02^40, 2003-Ohio-1574, causes held for the decision in 2002-0579, Burkhart v. CNA Ins. Co., Stark [1512]*1512App. No. 2001CA00265, 2002-0hio-903, and briefing schedule stayed.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., concur. Pfeifer, J., concurs but would also hold for the decision in 2002-0932, Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, Summit App. No. 20784, 2002-0hio-1502. F.E. Sweeney, J., concurs but would not hold for the decision in Burkhart. O’Donnell, J., concurs in part, would allow on Proposition of Law No. I and hold for Burkhart, and would allow on Proposition of Law No. Ill and hold for Galatis. O’Connor, J., concurs in part and would allow on Proposition of Law No. I only and hold for Burkhart. Resnick, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

792 N.E.2d 199, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frisch-v-cna-commercial-ins-co-ohio-2003.