“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Superseded — as noted by a later court
5 Appellee correctly points out that several courts have held that Webb was superseded by statute and is no longer good law.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
Sweeney, J.,
dissenting. For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Nobles v. Wolf (1990), 54 Ohio St. 3d 75 , 562 N.E. 2d 144 , I concur in the thoughtful analyses provided by Justices Douglas and Resnick in the case sub judice.