Csohan v. United Benefit Life Insurance Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County
200 N.E.2d 345 (1964)
- Written by Matthew Carney, JD
Facts
Csohan (plaintiff), a resident of San Diego, California, filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County in January 1984 against the United Benefit Life Insurance Company (defendant). The suit sought a payment of $5,000 from a life insurance policy held by Csohan’s father. The parties did not dispute that the policy was in force and that the death had occurred. Two months after the Ohio suit was initiated, United Benefit interpleaded in a suit between Betty Csohan, the decedent’s wife, and United of Omaha Insurance Company. The case was being heard in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. In response to the interpleader, Csohan filed a motion for a restraining order in Ohio court, seeking to enjoin United Benefit from continuing with its action in California. In response, United Benefit argued that it was willing to pay whichever member of the Csohan family was the proper beneficiary of the insurance policy, but it was not willing to pay twice. United Benefit further argued that while the Ohio court had jurisdiction in the instant case, the California courts had jurisdiction over both Csohans, making it important to litigate there. The Ohio court disagreed, and enjoined United Benefit from continuing its participation in the California action. United Benefit appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per Curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
