Molek v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Molek v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

1997 Ohio 264, 77 Ohio St. 3d 392

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 5, 1997

Docket1996-1639

StatusPublished

This text of 1997 Ohio 264 (Molek v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 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

Molek v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1997 Ohio 264, 77 Ohio St. 3d 392 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 77 Ohio St.3d 392.]

MOLEK ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. [Cite as Molek v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1997-Ohio-264.] 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 which reaches a contrary result is unenforceable. (No. 96-1639—Submitted December 11, 1996—Decided February 5, 1997.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 69480. __________________ Joseph L. Coticchia, for appellants. Meyers, Hentemann, Schneider & Rea Co., L.P.A., Henry A. Hentemann and J. Michael Creagan, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is allowed. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals 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 392.]

MOLEK ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. [Cite as Molek v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1997-Ohio-264.] 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 which reaches a contrary result is unenforceable. (No. 96-1639—Submitted December 11, 1996—Decided February 5, 1997.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 69480. __________________ Joseph L. Coticchia, for appellants. Meyers, Hentemann, Schneider & Rea Co., L.P.A., Henry A. Hentemann and J. Michael Creagan, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is allowed. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals 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 264, 77 Ohio St. 3d 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/molek-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack