Luckenbill v. Midwestern Indemn. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Luckenbill v. Midwestern Indemn. Co.

93 Ohio St. 3d 1300

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 10, 2001

Docket01-1678

StatusPublished

This text of 93 Ohio St. 3d 1300 (Luckenbill v. Midwestern Indemn. 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

Luckenbill v. Midwestern Indemn. Co., 93 Ohio St. 3d 1300 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Darke App. No. 01CA1536. On order certifying the following conflict to the Supreme Court:

“Does a provision in a policy of homeowner’s liability insurance that requires the insured to provide notice to the insurer before settling a claim on which the insurer has rights of subrogation, and which conditions the insurer’s duty to provide coverage on the insured’s compliance with that notice provision, likewise apply to any uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage which is impressed on the homeowner’s policy as a matter of law pursuant to R.C. 3937.18?”

The court determines that no conflict exists within the meaning of S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(2)(B). This cause is therefore dismissed.

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

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

Darke App. No. 01CA1536. On order certifying the following conflict to the Supreme Court:

“Does a provision in a policy of homeowner’s liability insurance that requires the insured to provide notice to the insurer before settling a claim on which the insurer has rights of subrogation, and which conditions the insurer’s duty to provide coverage on the insured’s compliance with that notice provision, likewise apply to any uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage which is impressed on the homeowner’s policy as a matter of law pursuant to R.C. 3937.18?”

The court determines that no conflict exists within the meaning of S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(2)(B). This cause is therefore dismissed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 Ohio St. 3d 1300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luckenbill-v-midwestern-indemn-co-ohio-2001.