Tricia Miller, of the Estate of Rhonda Bishop v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting executrix’s argument that tort conflict-of-law provisions determined which state’s law governed issue of whether insurer was required to provide per-person or per-accident UIM coverage and affirming district court’s application of contract provisions
• discussing Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Kurent, supra, and concluding that in another case, Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals had misapplied Kurent by concluding it controlled in any claim against insurer for recovery of damages caused by third party
• “It is well-settled in Ohio that in cases involving a contract, the law of the state where the contract is made governs interpretation of the contract.”
• “Though the case comes to us because of a “triggering event” that occurred in Ohio, . . . it ultimately concerns the interpretation of an insurance contract made in Pennsylvania.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).