Case ID: ohio-st-3d_68/html/0094-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Moyer, C.J., Wright, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Merriman, Appellant, v. State Farm Insurance Company, Appellee.
    [Cite as Merriman v. State Farm Ins. Co. (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 94.]
    (No. 93-330
    Submitted November 10, 1993
    Decided December 29, 1993.)
    
      William H. Allyn, Jr., for appellant.
    
      Fosson, Mann &'Preston and John L. Fosson, for appellee.
   Appellant’s motion to certify the record is allowed. All issues in this case were decided by this court’s recent case of Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809. “Insurers may contractually preclude intrafamily stacking — the stacking of uninsured/underinsured limits of policies and coverages purchased by family members in the same household. * * *” Savoie, supra, paragraph two of syllabus.

Because this case involves the stacking of two insurance policies owned by a husband and -wife, but the jurisdictional memoranda received by this court do not reveal whether the couple lived in the same household, we remand the cause to the trial court to obtain the information from the. parties which is necessary to properly apply the intrafamily/interfamily stacking test announced in Savoie, supra, and to apply Savoie.

AW.- Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., concurs separately.

Wright, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

Moyer, C.J.,

concurring separately. I concur separately in the judgment entry in the above-styled case. As my dissent in Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 602 N.E.2d 809, stated, I do not agree with the law announced in the majority decision. Nevertheless, it is the law on the issue in the above-styled case. As I believe all parties should receive equal application of the law announced by this court, and only for that reason, I concur in the judgment entry.

Wright, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in the result, but I must dissent from the reasoning herein in continuing protest to the majority’s sundry holdings in Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809.