 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co.5/31/1994
this case.(fn1)
Given that the language of the policy at issue is virtually identical to that of Tomlinson, coupled with the fact that the present case involves a single bodily injury not resulting in death, the first paragraph of the syllabus of Tomlinson is dispositive of plaintiffs' three assignments of error. The trial court did not err in finding that the language of Grange's policy limits liability coverage to $100,000 for plaintiffs' claims against Patricia Baeumel.
As a result, we overrule plaintiffs' three assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
WHITESIDE, P.J., and REILLY, J., concur.
ARCHER E. REILLY, J., retired, of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting by assignment.
____________________ Footnote:
1 At least one decision subsequent to Savoie has questioned a different portion of the syllabus of Tomlinson. See Erie Ins. Group v. Wolff (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 216, 640 N.E.2d 583. Similarly, while the Supreme Court in part has clarified the opinion in Savoie, the clarification does not extend to the issue addressed in the first paragraph of the syllabus of Tomlinson. See Newman v. United Ohio Ins. Co. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 1204, 631 N.E.2d 157; Hillman v. Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 1203, 631 N.E.2d 157.
|