 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
General Acc. Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America8/6/1990
ies. This claim is unsupported by thsrecord. For while the court stated that the "names of the two policies here involved are not unimportant," General Acc. Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (Nov. 23, 1987), Cuyahoga C.P. No. 88771, unreported, at 9, this remark followed a thorough analysis of property damage subject to coverage, and the relevant policy exclusions and endorsement.
Accordingly, this claim is overruled.
In their final challenge, General Accident and the insureds posit that even assuming that the relevant policy exclusions are applicable to bar coverage, they are only applicable with respect to McKee-Otto, the actual builder of the coke ovens. This claim lacks merit as INA's obligation is dependent upon whether the type of loss sustained is included within the policy. Cf. Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., supra; Preferred Risk Ins. Co. v. Gill (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 108, 30 OBR 424, 507 N.E.2d 1118, paragraph two of the syllabus. Thus, coverage is clearly not available for an excluded type of loss, regardless of whether the complaint asserts that a party is primarily or derivatively liable for that loss.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
PRYATEL and FORD, JJ., concur.
AUGUST PRYATEL, J., retired, of the Eighth Appellate District, and ROBERT B. FORD, J., of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, sitting by assignment.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|