Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ironics, Inc.
Citations
- 151 N.E.3d 1001
- 2020 Ohio 137
Syllabus
The trial court properly found that insured is not entitled to insurance coverage under commercial general liability policy because the claims asserted against the insured are either barred under the policy's contractual liability exclusion or are not cognizable pursuant to the economic-loss doctrine. However, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the insurance company, because the insured is entitled to coverage and a defense under the terms of an umbrella policy.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- contemplating the superior court’s application of RCW 42.56.565 on remand, notwithstanding its being enacted after the plaintiff sought interlocutory review
- contemplating the superior court' s application of RCW 42. 56. 565 on remand, notwithstanding its being enacted after the plaintiff sought interlocutory review
- retroactivity of a legislative change to the PRA enacted while review was pending should not have been taken up by the appellate court; it was an issue for the trial court following remand
- retroactivity of a legislative change to the PRA enacted while review was pending should not have been taken up by the appellate court; it was an issue for the trial court following remand
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Zmuda
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.