“It is a universal legal maxim that an insurance company must be able to assert the same defenses as the party for whose injurious action it is requested to provide compensation.”
How later courts described this case
- “It is a universal legal maxim that an insurance company must be able to assert the same defenses as the party for whose injurious action it is requested to provide compensation.”
- observing that the very same phrase appears in R.C. 3937.18(A)
- noting that the very same phrase appears in R.C. 3937.18[A]
- “[T]he meaning of ‘legally entitled to recover is susceptible to more than one interpretation. On this basis, the phrase is ambiguous because reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to its true meaning.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded — as noted by a later court
5 Appellee correctly points out that several courts have held that Webb was superseded by statute and is no longer good law.
by statutemedium confidence
The opinion
H. Brown, J.,
concurring. I concur in the syllabus, judgment, and opinion of the majority. I write separately to join my colleague Justice Resnick in calling upon the General Assembly to review and clarify public policy with regard to the law pertaining to uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. The legislature may want to reexamine the phrase “legally entitled to recover” in light of our decision today.
This court has recently wrestled with several difficult issues stemming from this area of the law. 4 Nonetheless, some uncertainty continues to plague our interpretation of the relevant statutes.
In addition to the case now before us, see, e.g., Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Phillips (1990), 52 Ohio St. 3d 162 , 556 N.E. 2d 1150 , reversing (1989), 44 Ohio St. 3d 163 , 541 N.E. 2d 1050 (application of per-person liability limits to wrongful death claims); State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Blevins (1990), 49 Ohio St. 3d 165 , 551 N.E. 2d 955 (recovery of punitive damages under uninsured motorist coverage).