Ramsey v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Ramsey v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

1996 Ohio 209, 75 Ohio St. 3d 454

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1996

Docket1995-0135

StatusPublished

This text of 1996 Ohio 209 (Ramsey v. Auto-Owners 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

Ramsey v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 1996 Ohio 209, 75 Ohio St. 3d 454 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 75 Ohio St.3d 454.]

RAMSEY, ADMR., APPELLANT, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. [Cite as Ramsey v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 1996-Ohio-209.] Insurance—Uninsured motorist provision—R.C. 3937.18 and public policy preclude contract provision requiring physical contact for recovery. (No. 95-135—Submitted April 15, 1996—Decided May 15, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-94-156. __________________ Schlageter, Breier & Bryce Co., L.P.A., Robert W. Bryce and Teresa M. Dewey Bacho, for appellant. Stephen A. Schaefer, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with Girgis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 302, ___ N.E.2d ___. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. F.E. SWEENEY, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in Girgis v. State Farm Mut. auto. Ins. Co. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 302, 309-312, 662 N.E.2d 280, ___. COOK, J., dissents. STRATTON, J., not participating. __________________

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 75 Ohio St.3d 454.]

RAMSEY, ADMR., APPELLANT, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. [Cite as Ramsey v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 1996-Ohio-209.] Insurance—Uninsured motorist provision—R.C. 3937.18 and public policy preclude contract provision requiring physical contact for recovery. (No. 95-135—Submitted April 15, 1996—Decided May 15, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-94-156. __________________ Schlageter, Breier & Bryce Co., L.P.A., Robert W. Bryce and Teresa M. Dewey Bacho, for appellant. Stephen A. Schaefer, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with Girgis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 302, ___ N.E.2d ___. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. F.E. SWEENEY, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in Girgis v. State Farm Mut. auto. Ins. Co. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 302, 309-312, 662 N.E.2d 280, ___. COOK, J., dissents. STRATTON, J., not participating. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Ohio 209, 75 Ohio St. 3d 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramsey-v-auto-owners-ins-co-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack