Abate v. Pioneer Mut. Cas. Co., No. 69-372

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtCORRIGAN; C. WILLIAM O'NEILL; LEACH, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for MATTHIAS
Citation258 N.E.2d 429,22 Ohio St.2d 161,51 O.O.2d 229
Parties, 51 O.O.2d 229 ABATE et al., Appellees, v. The PIONEER MUTUAL CASUALTY CO., Appellant.
Decision Date13 May 1970
Docket NumberNo. 69-372

Page 161

22 Ohio St.2d 161
258 N.E.2d 429, 51 O.O.2d 229
ABATE et al., Appellees,
v.
The PIONEER MUTUAL CASUALTY CO., Appellant.
No. 69-372.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
May 13, 1970.

[258 N.E.2d 430] Syllabus by the Court

1. R.C. 3937.18 requires automobile liability insurance policies issued in this state to contain an 'uninsured motorist' provision which protects the insured from losses occasioned through the fault of uninsured motorists, and such provision can be eliminated from such a policy of insurance only by the express rejection of that provision by the insured.

2. Where a policy of automobile insurance contains an 'uninsured motorist' provision, and there has been no express rejection of that provision by the insured, the coverage afforded by the 'uninsured motorist' provision is provided to the insured by operation of law.

This appeal arises out of a declaratory judgment action instituted by plaintiffs, husband and wife, appellees herein, seeking a determination that uninsured motorist coverage was in effect as a result of an automobile liability insurance policy purchased by plaintiff Joseph Abate from defendant, The Pioneer Mutual Casualty Company.

The policy was renewed on January 26, 1966, and was in effect on April 29, 1966. On April 29, 1966, plaintiff Mary Abate was involved in an automobile accident with

Page 162

an automobile driven by an uninsured motorist. A provision of the policy reads as follows:

'Part IV-Protection Against Uninsured Motorists Coverage J-Uninsured Motorists (damages for bodily injury): To pay all sums which the insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death resulting therefrom, hereinafter called 'bodily injury,' sustained by the insured, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured automobile; provided, for the purposes of this coverage, determination as to whether the insured of such representative is legally entitled to recover such damages, and if so the amount thereof, shall be made by agreement between the insured of such representative and the company or, if they fail to agree, by arbitration.'

Following the accident, appellees made demand for payment of medical expenses, which was refused by appellant. Arbitration was then demanded, and refused.

The Court of Common Pleas concluded that R.C. 3937.18 created uninsured motorist coverage in the insurance policy in question by operation of law. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Lawrence J. Damore, Youngstown, for appellees.

Clyde H. Collins, Columbus, for appellant.

CORRIGAN, Justice.

Appellant seeks to support is appeal with two propositions of law, the first of which is that R.C. 3937.18 is a regulatory statute requiring insurance companies to offer uninsured motorist coverage with automobile liability policies and that this statute does not make uninsured motorist coverage compulsory and does not create uninsured motorist coverage by operation of law.

R.C. 3937.18 provides:

'No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed [258 N.E.2d 431] by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
251 practice notes
  • Dolly v. Old Republic Ins. Co., No. 5:00CV1685.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • May 8, 2002
    ...statute. Therefore, by operation of law, UM/UIM coverage of $5 million is read into the excess policy. Abate v. Pioneer Mut. Cas. Co., 22 Ohio St.2d 161, 258 N.E.2d 429 (1970). The question with respect to that policy is whether the retained limits in the liability portion also operate to l......
  • White v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania, No. 5:02 CV 0999.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • August 5, 2003
    ...Page 623 Failure to do so would result in the insured acquiring UM/UIM coverage by operation of law. Abate v. Pioneer Mut. Cas. Co., 22 Ohio St.2d 161, 163, 258 N.E.2d 429 (1970). Although the statute permitted the insured to reject an offer of UM/UIM coverage, the burden was on the insuran......
  • Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Finch, No. 86-1505
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • September 16, 1987
    ...General Assembly as remedial legislation for the protection of persons not vehicles. See, e.g., Abate v. Pioneer Mut. Cas. Co. (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 161, 51 O.O.2d 229, 258 N.E.2d 429; Curran v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 33, 54 O.O.2d 166, 266 N.E.2d 566; Bartlett v. N......
  • Girgis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 94-2765
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • March 6, 1996
    ...designed to protect. See Reddick, 37 Ohio St.2d at 123, 66 O.O.2d at 261-262, 308 N.E.2d at 457; Abate v. Pioneer Mut. Cas. Co. (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 161, 165, 51 O.O.2d 229, 231, 258 N.E.2d 429, 432; Watson v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 195, 196-197, 532 N.E.2d 758, 759. We......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
251 cases
  • Dolly v. Old Republic Ins. Co., No. 5:00CV1685.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • May 8, 2002
    ...statute. Therefore, by operation of law, UM/UIM coverage of $5 million is read into the excess policy. Abate v. Pioneer Mut. Cas. Co., 22 Ohio St.2d 161, 258 N.E.2d 429 (1970). The question with respect to that policy is whether the retained limits in the liability portion also operate to l......
  • White v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania, No. 5:02 CV 0999.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • August 5, 2003
    ...Page 623 Failure to do so would result in the insured acquiring UM/UIM coverage by operation of law. Abate v. Pioneer Mut. Cas. Co., 22 Ohio St.2d 161, 163, 258 N.E.2d 429 (1970). Although the statute permitted the insured to reject an offer of UM/UIM coverage, the burden was on the insuran......
  • Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Finch, No. 86-1505
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • September 16, 1987
    ...General Assembly as remedial legislation for the protection of persons not vehicles. See, e.g., Abate v. Pioneer Mut. Cas. Co. (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 161, 51 O.O.2d 229, 258 N.E.2d 429; Curran v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 33, 54 O.O.2d 166, 266 N.E.2d 566; Bartlett v. N......
  • Girgis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 94-2765
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • March 6, 1996
    ...designed to protect. See Reddick, 37 Ohio St.2d at 123, 66 O.O.2d at 261-262, 308 N.E.2d at 457; Abate v. Pioneer Mut. Cas. Co. (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 161, 165, 51 O.O.2d 229, 231, 258 N.E.2d 429, 432; Watson v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 195, 196-197, 532 N.E.2d 758, 759. We......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT