Overton v. W. Res. Group

Ohio Supreme Court

Overton v. W. Res. Group

2001 Ohio 62, 91 Ohio St. 3d 333

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 11, 2001

Docket2000-0277

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2001 Ohio 62 (Overton v. W. Res. Group) 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

Overton v. W. Res. Group, 2001 Ohio 62, 91 Ohio St. 3d 333 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 91 Ohio St.3d 333.]

OVERTON ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. WESTERN RESERVE GROUP, APPELLEE. [Cite as Overton v. W. Res. Group, 2001-Ohio-62.] 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. 00-277—Submitted March 28, 2001—Decided April 11, 2001.) CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Wayne County, No. 99CA0007. __________________ {¶ 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. __________________ Boyk, McCulley & Crossmock and Steven L. Crossmock; and David G. Lake, 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 333.]

OVERTON ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. WESTERN RESERVE GROUP, APPELLEE. [Cite as Overton v. W. Res. Group, 2001-Ohio-62.] 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. 00-277—Submitted March 28, 2001—Decided April 11, 2001.) CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Wayne County, No. 99CA0007. __________________ {¶ 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. __________________ Boyk, McCulley & Crossmock and Steven L. Crossmock; and David G. Lake, for appellants. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Ohio 62, 91 Ohio St. 3d 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overton-v-w-res-group-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack