Case ID: ohio-st-3d_71/html/1202-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TRINOVA Corporation, Appellee, v. Pilkington Brothers, P.L.C. et al.; Libbey-Owens-Ford Company, Inc. et al., Appellants.
    [Cite as TRINOVA Corp. v. Pilkington Bros., P.L.C. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1202.]
    (No. 92-2240
    Submitted October 11, 1994
    Decided November 16, 1994.)
    
      Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and Richard M. Markus; Cooper, Straub, Walinski & Cramer, Richard S. Walinski and Joseph P. Thacker; Hedland, Hanley & John and Peter C. John, for appellee.
    
      Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Duke W. Thomas and Sandra J. Anderson; Fuller & Henry, Thomas S. Zaremba and Sue A. Sikkema, for appellants.
   Defendants-appellants, Libbey-Owens-Ford Company and Pilkington Holdings, Inc., have filed with this court a motion to reconsider our September 14, 1994 decision (reported at 70 Ohio St.3d 271, 638 N.E.2d 572) in the above-captioned matter.

After consideration of appellants’ motion, we will treat it as a motion for clarification and grant same to the extent that the first sentence of the third full paragraph appearing at page 277, 638 N.E.2d at 576, should read as follows:

“We are likewise unpersuaded by the argument that LOF was a third-party beneficiary of the contract executed by TRINOVA and Pilkington.”

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

A.W. Sweeney and Wright, JJ., dissent.

Resnick, J., not participating.