Abstract

This article looks at the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in Lovewell v. Physicians Insurance Co. and the variety of issues and unanswered questions the decision presents relating to insurance law. First, it may no longer be assumed that the insurer acts in tandem with the insured when the insurer is defending a suit brought against the covered individual. Secondly, the Lovewell decision seems to be contrary to one of the basic tenets of insurance law – that an insurance contract must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Third, the decision gives insureds cause to wonder whether a clause allowing them the right to refuse settlement may result in personal liability.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.