Munchick v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York

Ohio Supreme Court

Munchick v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York

31 Ohio Law Rep. 103

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 23, 1965

Docket39141

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Ohio Law Rep. 103 (Munchick v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York) 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

Munchick v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 31 Ohio Law Rep. 103 (Ohio 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Matthias, J.

1. A contract of insurance prepared and phrased by the insurer is to be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer, where the meaning of the language used is doubtful, uncertain or ambiguous. (Paragraph one of the syllabus of Toms v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 146 OhioSt. 39, 31 O.O. 538, approved and followed.)

2. Where the term, “theft,” is used but not defined in an insurance contract drafted by the insurer, it includes any wrongful deprivation of the property of another without claim or color of right. (Paragraph one of the syllabus of Riley v. Motorists Mutual, 176 OhioSt. 16, 26 O.O.(2d) 294, and paragraph three of the syllabus of Toms v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 146 OhioSt. 39, 31 O.O. 538, approved and followed; Royal Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Jack, 113 OhioSt. 153, overruled.)

Judgment reversed.

Zimmerman, O’Neill and Kerns, JJ., concur. Kerns, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Brown, J. Taft, C. J., Herbert and Schneider, JJ., concurring.

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