and public policy, include a provision requiring actual physical contact between the insured or the vehicle occupied by him and the unidentified vehicle." (Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Reddick [1974], 37 Ohio St. 2d 119, 308 N.E.2d 454, approved and followed.) I am convinced that Motorists Mutual created here precisely what the Rowe holding explicitly recognized as a lawful restriction on coverage: a policy definition that, by its very terms, limited coverage to cases involving direct physical contact between an unidentified hit- and-run vehicle and an insured vehicle. In my view, such a conclusion is manifest from the use of the term "hit" in the context of the definition as a whole. See Deinlein v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. (Mar. 22, 1989), Hamilton App. No. C-880228, unreported (<HOLDING>). That term, is its given context, has "a plain
holding that collision between the claimants vehicle and a steel pipe dropped from an exiting truck was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle holding that the term strike as used in a contractual definition of hitandrun coverage required physical contact between the hitandrun vehicle and the insured vehicle holding attempt to apprehend hitandrun driver was directly and reasonably related to the operation and use of the insured vehicle holding that the physical contact needed to support a direct claim against an uninsured motorist carrier pursuant to nc gen stat  2027921 existed where the physical contact arose between the hitandrun vehicle and plaintiffs vehicle through intermediate vehicles involved in an unbroken chain collision which involved the hitandrun vehicle holding that collision between loading ramp that detached from trailer and insureds vehicle was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle