Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Houck
Citations
- 35 Ohio C.C. Dec. 795
- 32 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 429
Syllabus
<p>INSURANCE</p> <p>Oral Contract for Automobile Insurance Contracted with Agent Held Valid and Binding.</p> <p>An agreement entered into between an owner and a local or soliciting agent for fire and theft insurance, covering an automobile and personal effects therein, is a contract in praesenti and becomes effective immediately. An attempt by the insurance company in issuing the policy to ratify the agent’s contract in part and reject it in part is without effect in the absence of consent by the insured, and without actual notice he is not bound by conditions in the policy inconsistent with the agreement entered into with the agent, nor by limitations in the charter of the insurance company.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Usually, a trial court may cure an improper statement by counsel without the necessity of granting a mistrial.”
- “An opening statement is not evidence; its purpose is ‘merely to inform the jury of what counsel expects the evidence to be so that they may better understand the evidence.’” (quoting Fields v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 300, 307 (1986))
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Allread, Houck, Jjt, Patterson, Shields
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.