# Brown v. Woodmen Accident & Life Co.

> Ohio Court of Appeals · November 30, 1992 · 84 Ohio App. 3d 52

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3701190

## Case

- **Full name:** BROWN Et Al., Appellants, v. WOODMEN ACCIDENT AND LIFE COMPANY; Nikias, Appellee
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 30, 1992
- **Citations:** 84 Ohio App. 3d 52; 616 N.E.2d 278; 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 5997
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Koehler
- **Judges:** Jones, Walsh, Koehler
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3701190

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding the plaintiffs could not establish the justifiable reliance element of their negligent misrepresentation claim, as they only had to look at the "documentation evidencing the insurance coverage * * * to ascertain the amount of coverage provided for" under their policy

## Opinion text

Koehler, Judge,
dissenting.
Upon inquiry from Emerson A. North Hospital as to coverage for Jo Ann Brown, Nikias indicated that Brown’s insurance plan provided coverage. Limitations upon such coverage were not indicated. The hospital relied upon such information and extended services. Was the hospital justified in relying upon such information? If so, was Jo Ann Brown able to rely as well upon such information?
The trial court, in granting summary judgment to Nikias, and the majority herein, would make a factual finding that this sick person seeking medical
*58
assistance should have gotten the holder of the policy to allow her to read it to discover the limitation on her coverage.
I do not believe the cause can or should be decided on a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3701190. Public record. Not legal advice.