The Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. G.L.H., Inc.

1 Citing case

  1. Mosser Const. v. the Travelers Indem

    430 F. App'x 417 (6th Cir. 2011)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Collecting Ohio cases

    If a term is ambiguous, however, then, as with terms in the main body of the contract, it must be construed broadly in favor of the insured and against the insurer. See Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. G.L.H., Inc., 2008 WL 2940663, at *7 (Ohio Ct.App. Aug. 1, 2008) (unpublished); see also TRB Invs., Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 40 Cal.4th 19, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 597, 145 P.3d 472, 477 (2006); St Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Lefton Iron Metal Co., Inc., 296 Ill.App.3d 475, 230 Ill.Dec. 771, 694 N.E.2d 1049, 1057 (1998); Rufener v. State Farm Fire Cos. Co. 221 Wis.2d 500; 585 N.W.2d 696, 699 (1998); Hughes v. State Farm Fire Cos. Co., 2007 WL 2871849, at H (W.D.Pa. Sept.27, 2007).