defense based exception in Ohio

2023Co. v. Louis Marx Co., 64 Ohio St.2d 399, 401 , 415 N.E.2d 315 (1980). {¶96} The court has further held that “[w]here exceptions, qualifications or exemptions are introduced into an insurance contract, a general presumption arises to the effect that that which is not clearly excluded from the operation of such contract is included in the operation thereof.’” (Emphasis added.) Moorman v. Prudential Ins.

2023Co. v. Louis Marx Co., 64 Ohio St.2d 399, 401 , 415 N.E.2d 315 (1980). {¶96} The court has further held that “[w]here exceptions, qualifications or exemptions are introduced into an insurance contract, a general presumption arises to the effect that that which is not clearly excluded from the operation of such contract is included in the operation thereof.’” (Emphasis added.) Moorman v. Prudential Ins.

2022The exclusion at issue states, “This insurance applies to bodily injury and property damage only if * * * [p]rior to the policy period, no insured * * * knew that the bodily injury or property damage had occurred, in whole or in part.” The First District held that the loss-in- progress provision is a prerequisite to establishing coverage, rather than an exclusion to coverage and that, therefore, Masters has the burden to show that the provision does not apply. 2020-Ohio-3440 at ¶ 38 .

2022The exclusion at issue states, “This insurance applies to bodily injury and property damage only if * * * [p]rior to the policy period, no insured * * * knew that the bodily injury or property damage had occurred, in whole or in part.” The First District held that the loss-in- progress provision is a prerequisite to establishing coverage, rather than an exclusion to coverage and that, therefore, Masters has the burden to show that the provision does not apply. 2020-Ohio-3440 at ¶ 38.

2022Co., 350 F.Supp. 380, 384 (E.D.Pa.1972) (“ ‘A defense based on an exception or exclusion in an insurance policy is an affirmative one, and the burden is cast on the insurer to establish it’ ”).

2022Co., 350 F.Supp. 380 , 384 (E.D.Pa.1972) (“ ‘A defense based on an exception or exclusion in an insurance policy is an affirmative one, and the burden is cast on the insurer to establish it’ ”).

2021It cited the standard for granting a motion for a preliminary injunction, as stated in P & G v. Stoneham, 140 Ohio App.3d 260, 267 (1st Dist.2000): 2 Appellees also asserted a defense based on the doctrine of laches that they have not raised in this appeal. [A] party requesting a preliminary injunction must show that (1) there is a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, (2) the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) no third parties will be unjustifiably harmed if the injunction is granted, and (4) the public interest will