Unger v. Guarantee Reserve Life Ins. Co. of Hammond

166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 409
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMay 29, 1957
DocketNo. 34995
StatusPublished

This text of 166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 409 (Unger v. Guarantee Reserve Life Ins. Co. of Hammond) 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
Unger v. Guarantee Reserve Life Ins. Co. of Hammond, 166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 409 (Ohio 1957).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The question presented is whether, at the time of the accident resulting in decedent’s death, he was “en route between the home and the school” within the meaning of that term as used in the policy; or, more specifically, did the word, “home,” include the dwelling house only, or did it include the garage located on the premises with the dwelling house?

Appellant contends that the “home” included the premises or geographic area known as “home,” that the term, “en route,” meant while on the journey or way between the premises, surrounding the house, and the school, and that, since, on the morning of the accident, decedent never left the immediate premises on which his residence was located, he was not within the geographical area covered by the policy.

With that contention the majority of this court is not in accord. As a general rule in Ohio, a genuine ambiguity in a contract or policy of insurance written by the insurer will be construed in favor of the insured or beneficiary. If the word, “home,” as used in the policy, is ambiguous and susceptible of different meanings, that interpretation should be made which is most favorable to the insured. By giving such an interpretation to the policy herein, the word, “home,” will be construed to mean “dwelling house,” and decedent had left his home and was en route to school when the accident occurred.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Stewaet, Bell, Taet, Matthias and HeRbeet, JJ., concur. Wetgandt, C. J., and Zimmerman, J., dissent.

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

Related

De Mouy v. Jepson
51 So. 2d 506 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1951)
Montgomery v. Kjorstad
42 N.W.2d 923 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1950)
Jones v. Holloway
36 A.2d 551 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1944)
Toms v. Hartford Fire Ins.
63 N.E.2d 909 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1945)
Kitt v. Home Indemnity Co.
92 N.E.2d 685 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1950)
Ratzell v. State
1924 OK CR 193 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1924)
Seismic Explorations, Inc. v. Dobray
169 S.W.2d 739 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1943)
In re Estate of Niesen
103 N.E.2d 24 (Hamilton County Probate Court, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/unger-v-guarantee-reserve-life-ins-co-of-hammond-ohio-1957.