Lovewell v. Physicians Insurance Co.: Personal Liability for Prejudgment Interest

Karin M. Mika
{"title":"Lovewell v. Physicians Insurance Co.: Personal Liability for Prejudgment Interest","authors":"Karin M. Mika","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1649652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article looks at the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in Lovewell v. Physicians Insurance Co. and the variety of issues and unanswered questions the decision presents relating to insurance law. First, it may no longer be assumed that the insurer acts in tandem with the insured when the insurer is defending a suit brought against the covered individual. Secondly, the Lovewell decision seems to be contrary to one of the basic tenets of insurance law – that an insurance contract must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Third, the decision gives insureds cause to wonder whether a clause allowing them the right to refuse settlement may result in personal liability.","PeriodicalId":258683,"journal":{"name":"The Cleveland State Law Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cleveland State Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1649652","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article looks at the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in Lovewell v. Physicians Insurance Co. and the variety of issues and unanswered questions the decision presents relating to insurance law. First, it may no longer be assumed that the insurer acts in tandem with the insured when the insurer is defending a suit brought against the covered individual. Secondly, the Lovewell decision seems to be contrary to one of the basic tenets of insurance law – that an insurance contract must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Third, the decision gives insureds cause to wonder whether a clause allowing them the right to refuse settlement may result in personal liability.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
洛夫韦尔诉内科医生保险公司:判决前利息的个人责任
本文着眼于俄亥俄州最高法院在Lovewell诉内科医生保险公司一案中的判决,以及该判决提出的与保险法有关的各种问题和未解决的问题。首先,当保险公司对被保险人提起的诉讼进行辩护时,可能不再假定保险公司与被保险人一起行动。其次,Lovewell案的判决似乎违背了保险法的一个基本原则——保险合同必须被自由地解释为有利于被保险人而严格地不利于保险人。第三,这一决定让被保险人有理由怀疑,允许他们有权拒绝和解的条款是否会导致个人责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Masterpiece Cakeshop's Homiletics The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Incapacity and Ability to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office? How Big Money Ruined Public Life in Wisconsin The Duty to Charge in Police Use of Excessive Force Cases Book Review: Analyzing the Effectiveness of the Tallinn Manual’s Jus Ad Bellum Doctrine on Cyberconflict,: A NATO-Centric Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1