policy used “amounts payable” language
How later courts described this case
- policy used “amounts payable” language
- policy language “any amount payable under the Uninsured Motorists Coverage” required offset against total damages
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by In re Nationwide Insurance, 45 Ohio St. 3d 11 (1989)
Co. (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 27, 15 OBR 67, 472 N.E.2d 700, overruled on other grounds, In re Nationwide Ins.,Co. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 11, 543 N.E.2d 89.
The opinion
Locher, J.,
dissenting in part. Although I concur in the majority resolution of the second issue of this case dealing with setoff, I must dissent from that part of the opinion dealing with stacking of coverages. The reasons for my dissent were succinctly set forth in the dissent in Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lewis (1984), 10 Ohio St. 3d 156, 161 (Holmes, J., dissenting in part), in which I concurred. As was the case in Auto-Owners, supra, the insured should be bound by the terms of their insurance contract, which here provides for a $300,000 uninsured/underinsured coverage ceiling per accident.
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on the first issue..