(A)(1) If a court in a civil action enters a final judgment that awards damages to a plaintiff for injury, death, or loss to the person or property of the plaintiff or another person for whom the plaintiff is a legal representative and if, at the time that the cause of action accrued against the judgment debtor, the judgment debtor was insured against liability for that injury, death, or loss, the plaintiff or the plaintiff's successor in interest is entitled as judgment creditor to have an amount up to the remaining limit of liability coverage provided in the judgment debtor's policy of liability insurance applied to the satisfaction of the final judgment.
(2) If, within thirty days after the entry of the final judgment referred to in division (A)(1) of this section, the insurer that issued the policy of liability insurance has not paid the judgment creditor an amount equal to the remaining limit of liability coverage provided in that policy, the judgment creditor may file in the court that entered the final judgment a supplemental complaint against the insurer seeking the entry of a judgment ordering the insurer to pay the judgment creditor the requisite amount. Subject to division (C) of this section, the civil action based on the supplemental complaint shall proceed against the insurer in the same manner as the original civil action against the judgment debtor.
(B) Division (A)(2) of this section does not authorize the commencement of a civil action against an insurer until a court enters the final judgment described in division (A)(1) of this section in the distinct civil action for damages between the plaintiff and an insured tortfeasor and until the expiration of the thirty-day period referred to in division (A)(2) of this section.
(C)(1) In a civil action that a judgment creditor commences in accordance with divisions (A)(2) and (B) of this section against an insurer that issued a particular policy of liability insurance, the insurer has and may assert as an affirmative defense against the judgment creditor any coverage defenses that the insurer possesses and could assert against the holder of the policy in a declaratory judgment action or proceeding under Chapter 2721. of the Revised Code between the holder and the insurer.
(2) If, prior to the judgment creditor's commencement of the civil action against the insurer in accordance with divisions (A)(2) and (B) of this section, the holder of the policy commences a declaratory judgment action or proceeding under Chapter 2721. of the Revised Code against the insurer for a determination as to whether the policy's coverage provisions extend to the injury, death, or loss to person or property underlying the judgment creditor's judgment, and if the court involved in that action or proceeding enters a final judgment with respect to the policy's coverage or noncoverage of that injury, death, or loss, that final judgment shall be deemed to have binding legal effect upon the judgment creditor for purposes of the judgment creditor's civil action against the insurer under divisions (A)(2) and (B) of this section. This division shall apply notwithstanding any contrary common law principles of res judicata or adjunct principles of collateral estoppel.
West Broad Chiropractic v. Am. Fam. Ins., 2009 Ohio 3506 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 60ד] Assignment of settlement proceeds — Relevance of R.C. 3929.06 — Judgment affirmed. (Nos. 2008-1396 and 2008-1489 — Submitted April 21, 2009 — Decided July 23, 2009.”
Est. of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc., 2010 Ohio 3264 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 26ד{¶ 1} In this case, we are asked to determine whether a declaratory judgment obtained in an action initiated by an insurer, holding that the insurer has no duty to indemnify its insured for injuries caused to a third party, is binding upon that third party in a separate action…”
Hicks v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2017 Ohio 7095 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 18ד2002CA00201, 2002-Ohio-7221 , ¶ 38, noting that after the 1999 addition of subsections (C)(1) and (2) to R.C. 3929.06, “the right to assert an affirmative defense against the judgment creditor as to any coverage defenses it has against the policy holder still are present.”
McCruter v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 2021 Ohio 472 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 13ד{¶24} Attorney Oryshkewych responded by reiterating his client’s intention to file a supplemental complaint against Travelers pursuant to R.C. 3929.06 and stating nothing in the statute relieves the insurer of liability if the insured does not want the insurer involved.”
Elkins v. Am. Int'l Special Lines Ins., 611 F. Supp. 2d 752 (S.D. Ohio 2009). · cites it 18דOn March 20, 2008, plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 3929.06 against the defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio.”
Howell v. Richardson, 544 N.E.2d 878 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 5דI The present action was brought pursuant to R.C. 3929.06. This section provides as follows: “Upon the recovery of a final judgment against any firm, person, or corporation by any person, including administrators and executors, for loss or damage on account of bodily injury or…”
Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. v. Christian, 794 N.E.2d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5ד’s damages, because pursuant to R.C. 3929.06, both parties did not first secure a judgment against Michigan Millers’ insureds, John Minter and Champaign Landmark, Inc.”
Luri v. Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2019 Ohio 1440 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 16ד{¶10} On June 22, 2009, Luri filed a supplemental complaint pursuant to R.C. 3929.06, which authorizes direct actions against the judgment debtor's insurance carrier after a final judgment has been obtained and upon the fulfillment of certain conditions precedent.”
Burr v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 Ohio 4406 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 7ד{¶10} In its motion for summary judgment, Nationwide argued that the claims against it were precluded based upon (1) the terms of the AIG release, (2) res judicata, (3) the failure of the Estate to follow the requirements of R.C. 3929.06, (4) the absence of a duty, an element…”
Indiana Ins. v. Murphy, 848 N.E.2d 889 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 12דder this chapter between an insurer and a holder of a policy of liability insurance issued by the insurer and that resolves an issue as to whether the policy’s coverage provisions extend to an injury, death, or loss to person or property that an insured under the policy…”
Sanderson v. Ohio Edison Co., 635 N.E.2d 19 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 3דOn cross-assignments of error, the insurer argues in its fourth and fifth propositions of laws that, even if this court concludes that plaintiff’s arguments are meritorious, the negligence agreed upon in the underlying action is not covered under the policies, and that the truck…”
Fraley v. Est. of Oeding, 2014 Ohio 452 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 2דThe parties seem to agree that R.C. 3929.06 17 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO prevents a direct action by Fraley against Auto-Owners; I am not sure that I share that view, but that issue is not alive in this case and is a matter for another day.”
Elkins v. Am. Int'l Special Lines Ins., 611 F. Supp. 2d 752 (S.D. Ohio 2009). “On March 20, 2008, plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 3929.06 against the defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio.”
West Broad Chiropractic v. Am. Fam. Ins., 2009 Ohio 3506 (Ohio 2009). “] Assignment of settlement proceeds — Relevance of R.C. 3929.06 — Judgment affirmed. (Nos. 2008-1396 and 2008-1489 — Submitted April 21, 2009 — Decided July 23, 2009.”
Hicks v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2017 Ohio 7095 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “2002CA00201, 2002-Ohio-7221 , ¶ 38, noting that after the 1999 addition of subsections (C)(1) and (2) to R.C. 3929.06, “the right to assert an affirmative defense against the judgment creditor as to any coverage defenses it has against the policy holder still are present.”
Elkins v. Am. Int'l Special Lines Ins., 611 F. Supp. 2d 752 (S.D. Ohio 2009). “On March 20, 2008, plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 3929.06 against the defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio.”
McCruter v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 2021 Ohio 472 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶24} Attorney Oryshkewych responded by reiterating his client’s intention to file a supplemental complaint against Travelers pursuant to R.C. 3929.06 and stating nothing in the statute relieves the insurer of liability if the insured does not want the insurer involved.”
Est. of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc., 2010 Ohio 3264 (Ohio 2010). “{¶ 1} In this case, we are asked to determine whether a declaratory judgment obtained in an action initiated by an insurer, holding that the insurer has no duty to indemnify its insured for injuries caused to a third party, is binding upon that third party in a separate action…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3929.06(A)(2) — 11 cases
McCruter v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 2021 Ohio 472 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶24} Attorney Oryshkewych responded by reiterating his client’s intention to file a supplemental complaint against Travelers pursuant to R.C. 3929.06 and stating nothing in the statute relieves the insurer of liability if the insured does not want the insurer involved.”
Est. of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc., 2010 Ohio 3264 (Ohio 2010). “{¶ 1} In this case, we are asked to determine whether a declaratory judgment obtained in an action initiated by an insurer, holding that the insurer has no duty to indemnify its insured for injuries caused to a third party, is binding upon that third party in a separate action…”
Hicks v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2017 Ohio 7095 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “2002CA00201, 2002-Ohio-7221 , ¶ 38, noting that after the 1999 addition of subsections (C)(1) and (2) to R.C. 3929.06, “the right to assert an affirmative defense against the judgment creditor as to any coverage defenses it has against the policy holder still are present.”
Elkins v. Am. Int'l Special Lines Ins., 611 F. Supp. 2d 752 (S.D. Ohio 2009). “On March 20, 2008, plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 3929.06 against the defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3929.06(B) — 17 cases
West Broad Chiropractic v. Am. Fam. Ins., 2009 Ohio 3506 (Ohio 2009). “] Assignment of settlement proceeds — Relevance of R.C. 3929.06 — Judgment affirmed. (Nos. 2008-1396 and 2008-1489 — Submitted April 21, 2009 — Decided July 23, 2009.”
Elkins v. Am. Int'l Special Lines Ins., 611 F. Supp. 2d 752 (S.D. Ohio 2009). “On March 20, 2008, plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 3929.06 against the defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio.”
Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. v. Christian, 794 N.E.2d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “’s damages, because pursuant to R.C. 3929.06, both parties did not first secure a judgment against Michigan Millers’ insureds, John Minter and Champaign Landmark, Inc.”
Est. of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc., 2010 Ohio 3264 (Ohio 2010). “{¶ 1} In this case, we are asked to determine whether a declaratory judgment obtained in an action initiated by an insurer, holding that the insurer has no duty to indemnify its insured for injuries caused to a third party, is binding upon that third party in a separate action…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3929.06(C)(1) — 9 cases
McCruter v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 2021 Ohio 472 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶24} Attorney Oryshkewych responded by reiterating his client’s intention to file a supplemental complaint against Travelers pursuant to R.C. 3929.06 and stating nothing in the statute relieves the insurer of liability if the insured does not want the insurer involved.”
Est. of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc., 2010 Ohio 3264 (Ohio 2010). “{¶ 1} In this case, we are asked to determine whether a declaratory judgment obtained in an action initiated by an insurer, holding that the insurer has no duty to indemnify its insured for injuries caused to a third party, is binding upon that third party in a separate action…”
Hicks v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2017 Ohio 7095 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “2002CA00201, 2002-Ohio-7221 , ¶ 38, noting that after the 1999 addition of subsections (C)(1) and (2) to R.C. 3929.06, “the right to assert an affirmative defense against the judgment creditor as to any coverage defenses it has against the policy holder still are present.”
Elkins v. Am. Int'l Special Lines Ins., 611 F. Supp. 2d 752 (S.D. Ohio 2009). “On March 20, 2008, plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 3929.06 against the defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio.”
Est. of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc., 2010 Ohio 3264 (Ohio 2010). “{¶ 1} In this case, we are asked to determine whether a declaratory judgment obtained in an action initiated by an insurer, holding that the insurer has no duty to indemnify its insured for injuries caused to a third party, is binding upon that third party in a separate action…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.