Yepko v. State Farm Mutual Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Yepko v. State Farm Mutual Insurance

683 N.E.2d 1090, 79 Ohio St. 3d 414

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 24, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2625

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 683 N.E.2d 1090 (Yepko v. State Farm Mutual Insurance) 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

Yepko v. State Farm Mutual Insurance, 683 N.E.2d 1090, 79 Ohio St. 3d 414 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

The following question has been certified to us by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, pursuant to S.Ct. Prac.R. XVIII:

“Whether a wrongful death claimant who is a statutory beneficiary of an insured decedent can recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of the [415]*415decedent’s insurance policy, either individually or through the administratrix of the decedent’s estate, if the claimant is not an insured as defined in the policy.”

We answer the certified question in the affirmative on the authority of Holt v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 401, 683 N.E.2d 1080, decided today.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in Justice Cook’s dissent in Holt. Moyer, C.J., dissents.

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

The following question has been certified to us by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, pursuant to S.Ct. Prac.R. XVIII:

“Whether a wrongful death claimant who is a statutory beneficiary of an insured decedent can recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of the [415]*415decedent’s insurance policy, either individually or through the administratrix of the decedent’s estate, if the claimant is not an insured as defined in the policy.”

We answer the certified question in the affirmative on the authority of Holt v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 401, 683 N.E.2d 1080, decided today.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in Justice Cook’s dissent in Holt. Moyer, C.J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

683 N.E.2d 1090, 79 Ohio St. 3d 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yepko-v-state-farm-mutual-insurance-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack