Case ID: ohio-st-3d_71/html/0165-01.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

Fife, Appellant, v. Central Insurance Companies, Appellee.
    [Cite as Fife v. Cent. Ins. Cos. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 165.]
    
      (No. 94-1800
    Submitted November 15, 1994
    Decided December 14, 1994.)
    
      Arthur, O’Neil, Mertz & Bates Co., L.P.A., and Eric A. Mertz, for appellant.
    
      Clemens, Korhn & Liming and Stephen F. Korhn, for appellee.
   A discretionary appeal is allowed, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court to apply Martin v. Midwestern Group Ins. Co. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 478, 639 N.E.2d 438.

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

Moyer, C.J., concurs separately.

Wright, J., dissents.

Moyer, C.J.,

concurring separately. I concur separately in the judgment entry in this case. As my dissent in Martin v. Midwestern Group Ins. Co. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 478, 639 N.E.2d 438, 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.,

dissenting. For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinions in Martin v. Midwestern Group Ins. Co. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 478, 639 N.E.2d 438,1 emphatically dissent. We should overrule Martin, supra, and reinstate Hedrick v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 42, 22 OBR 63, 488 N.E.2d 840.