From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Colelli

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 22, 2002
95 Ohio St. 3d 325 (Ohio 2002)

Summary

limiting to its facts Preferred Risk Ins. Co. v. Gill 30 Ohio St. 3d 108, 114, which had held that a narrower duty to defend existed in the absence of the "groundless, false or fraudulent" insurance policy language

Summary of this case from Younglove Construction, LLC v. PSD Development, LLC

Opinion

No. 2001-1309.

Submitted April 10, 2002.

Decided May 22, 2002.

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Wayne County, No. 00CA0053.

Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley Mathews, James F. Mathews and Jack R. Baker, for appellee.

Jaime P. Serrat and Shawn P. Martin, for appellant.

Robert P. Rutter, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.


The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 177, 9 OBR 463, 459 N.E.2d 555. The holding in Preferred Risk Ins. Co. v. Gill (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 108, 30 OBR 424, 507 N.E.2d 1118, is limited to its facts.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Harsha and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

William H. Harsha III, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting for Cook, J.


Summaries of

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Colelli

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 22, 2002
95 Ohio St. 3d 325 (Ohio 2002)

limiting to its facts Preferred Risk Ins. Co. v. Gill 30 Ohio St. 3d 108, 114, which had held that a narrower duty to defend existed in the absence of the "groundless, false or fraudulent" insurance policy language

Summary of this case from Younglove Construction, LLC v. PSD Development, LLC
Case details for

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Colelli

Case Details

Full title:Cincinnati Insurance Company, Appellee, v. Colelli Associates, Inc.…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: May 22, 2002

Citations

95 Ohio St. 3d 325 (Ohio 2002)
767 N.E.2d 717

Citing Cases

Younglove Construction, LLC v. PSD Development, LLC

The Ohio Supreme Court has recently clarified that the rule applies to all insurance policies, even in the…

W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. RAE ARC Indus.

Specifically when an insurer could demonstrate that the act in question was intentional, and therefore…