City of Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Insurance

Supreme Court of Ohio · Decided 1984-02-15

Cited by 243 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

Holmes, J., dissenting. I dissent from the majority opinion in that the allegations in the respective complaints do not state a claim which is potentially within the ambit of policy coverage. Under the terms of the insurance policy, appellee only had a duty to defend if a suit against the appellant sought damages for bodily injury or property damage caused by an “occurrence.” The policy defined “occurrence” as:…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.