Premium Essay

Adr5

In:

Submitted By maghappy
Words 1030
Pages 5
In the case presented, Donna Driver admitted liability in a car accident with Vic Victim. Her liability coverage through Gekko is $100,000. Vic’s medical bills alone are close to $100,000 and he may be granted more than that because of missed work and pain and suffering.
Donna requested her insurance company to settle the case with Vic’s offer of $100,000. Gekko declines and at trial Vic wins $200,000. Donna had to file bankruptcy because of this loss and is now suing Gekko for not negotiating in good faith.
You have asked me to research how the cases of Shaeffer, Whiting v. Grange Mutual Casualty Company, 1981 Ohio App. LEXIS 14351 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981) and Schneider v. Eady, 2008-Ohio-6747 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) will affect our case with Donna Driver.
In Shaeffer, Whiting v. Grange Mutual Casualty Company, 1981 Ohio App. LEXIS 14351 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981) the Ohio Court of Appeals ruled that liability insurance companies owe no duty to injured third-party claimants. The court stated that the plaintiffs had no relationship with the insurance company that required the company a duty of good faith to settle the claim without litigation. The only contractual duty the insurance company had with the plaintiffs “was to pay medical payment expenses pursuant to the terms of their insurance contract.” Id. Because the insurance company paid the limit of the insured medical liability, they lived up to their contract and had no other contractual duties owed the plaintiffs.
The court held that the insurance company only owes a duty of good faith and fair dealing to their insured and only to the terms within their policy contract. Since Grange paid the medical expenses pursuant to the policy, their remaining duty was to their insured, “which was to defend in good faith and to pay any judgment assessed against its insured which was covered under the terms of the policy.” Id. The

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Vertex

...Powerware Series Eaton FERRUPS FE/QFE UPS User's Guide ® ® Class A EMC Statements FCC Part 15 NOTE This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the limits for a Class A digital device, pursuant to part 15 of the FCC Rules. These limits are designed to provide reasonable protection against harmful interference when the equipment is operated in a commercial environment. This equipment generates, uses, and can radiate radio frequency energy and, if not installed and used in accordance with the instruction manual, may cause harmful interference to radio communications. Operation of this equipment in a residential area is likely to cause harmful interference in which case the user will be required to correct the interference at his own expense. ICES-003 This Class A Interference Causing Equipment meets all requirements of the Canadian Interference Causing Equipment Regulations ICES‐003. Cet appareil numérique de la classe A respecte toutes les exigences du Reglement sur le matériel brouilleur du Canada. For Users in Germany We hereby certify that the uninterruptible power system (QFE 500 VA, 700 VA, 850 VA, 1.15 kVA, 1.4 kVA, 1.8 kVA, 2.1 kVA, 3.1 kVA, 4.3 kVA, 5.3 kVA, 7 kVA, 10 kVA, 12.5 kVA, and 18 kVA) complies with the RFI suppression requirements of Vfg. 243/1991 and Vfg. 46/1992. The German Postal Service was notified that the equipment is being marketed. The German Postal Service has the right to retest the equipment and verify compliance...

Words: 27086 - Pages: 109