Abstract
The automobile insurance industry is up in arms after a decade of consumer friendly Ohio Supreme Court decisions. The insurance industry and commentators have noted the trend of judicial activism in interpreting insurance contracts. These decisions have been overwhelmingly in favor of consumers and against insurance companies. The Ohio Supreme Court decision of Holt v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co., is another consumer friendly decision and represents both an equitable and sound interpretation and application of Ohio law to consumer insurance contracts. This note walks through the Holt case, starting at the trial court level and working up through the Ohio Supreme Court decision. The authors conclude that the Ohio Supreme Court has taken a significant and laudable step to support the public policy considerations embodied in the uninsured/underinsured insurance statute and wrongful death statute at the expense of the narrowly drafted language imposed upon consumers in contracts crafted by insurance companies.
Recommended Citation
Barbara J. Tyler and Thomas S. Tyler,
Holt v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co.: Children Not Insureds under Policy Are Entitled to Death Benefits ,
45 Clev. St. L. Rev.
699
(1997)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol45/iss4/13