Case ID: ohio-st-3d_88/html/0547-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Douglas, J., Lundberg Stratton, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Meece et al., Appellants, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellee.
    [Cite as Meece v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 547.]
    (No. 99-2118
    Submitted April 11, 2000
    Decided May 24, 2000.)
    
      Katzman, Logan, Halper & Bennett and Philip A. Logan, for appellants.
    
      
      Gallagher, Bradigan, Gams, Pryor & Littrell, L.L.P., and James R. Gallagher, for appellee.
   The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and consideration, where applicable, of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 725 N.E.2d 261, and Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 723 N.E.2d 97.

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

Douglas, J., concurs separately.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Douglas, J.,

concurring. I concur for the reasons set forth in my concurrence in Stickney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 504, 727 N.E.2d 1286.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent because I do not agree that the analysis of R.C. 3937.18(A)(1) in Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 723 N.E.2d 97, has any application to an analysis of R.C. 3937.18(H) or to R.C. 3937.44. However, to the extent that the majority believes that these cases apply, I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinions in Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 252-255, 725 N.E.2d 261, 267-269, and Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 88 Ohio St.3d at 33-36, 723 N.E.2d at 103-105.

Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.