Abstract
Nearly every state has a requirement concerning uninsured motorist coverage, although state statutes differ in their scope and language. There has been a great volume of literature discussing the applicability of uninsured motorist coverage in cases involving hit and run drivers. This casenote will set out the various state statutory approaches to hit and run vehicles under uninsured motorist coverage, as well as evaluate the Ohio Supreme Court's historical approach to the physical contact doctrine. The casenote will thoroughly address the Girgis opinion and its underlying rationale, as well as the repercussions of abrogating the physical contract doctrine. Finally, this note will analyze the potential effectiveness of the corroborative evidence doctrine, and will put forward an alternative approach addressing the issue of how innocent victims of hit and run accidents should have to prove they are entitled to compensation from their uninsured motorist policy.
Recommended Citation
Cirelli, Dominick Jr.
(1997)
"Girgis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.: Rescinding the Physical Contact Requirement in Ohio Uninsured Motorist Claims,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 30:
Iss.
1, Article 6.
Available at:
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol30/iss1/6