limiting to its facts Preferred Risk Ins. Co. v. Gill, 30 Ohio St.3d 108, 114, 507 N.E.2d 1118 (1987), which had held that a narrower duty to defend existed in the absence of the "groundless, false or fraudulent” insurance policy language
How later courts described this case
- limiting to its facts Preferred Risk Ins. Co. v. Gill, 30 Ohio St.3d 108, 114, 507 N.E.2d 1118 (1987), which had held that a narrower duty to defend existed in the absence of the "groundless, false or fraudulent” insurance policy language
- “even when a policy does not include the ‘groundless, false, or fraudulent’ language, the pleadings test in Willoughby Hills still applies”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 177 , 9 OBR 463, 459 N.E.2d 555 . The holding in Preferred Risk Ins. Co. v. Gill (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 108 , 30 OBR 424, 507 N.E.2d 1118 , is limited to its facts.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Harsha and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews, James F. Mathews and Jack R. Baker, for appellee.
Jaime P. Serrat and Shawn P. Martin, for appellant.
Robert P. Rutter, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.