Case ID: ohio-st-3d_103/html/0557-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lundberg Stratton, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Witt et al., Appellants, v. Ohio Insurance Guaranty Association, Appellee.
    [Cite as Witt v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Assn., 103 Ohio St.3d 557, 2004-Ohio-5846.]
    
      (Nos. 2003-0363 and 2003-0457
    Submitted October 13, 2004
    Decided November 17, 2004.)
    Berns, Ockner & Greenberger, L.L.C., Sheldon I. Berns and Paul M. Greenberger, for appellants.
    Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., F. James Foley and Lisa Babish Forbes, for appellee.
   {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded for disposition in accordance with Katz v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Assn., 103 Ohio St.3d 4, 2004-Ohio-4109, 812 N.E.2d 1266.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

O’Donnell, J., not participating.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 2} Because I agree with the analysis of the court of appeals that only one covered claim exists for purposes of Ohio Insurance Guaranty Association’s (“OIGA”) exposure, I respectfully dissent. In Katz v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Assn., 103 Ohio St.3d 4, 2004-Ohio-4109, 812 N.E.2d 1266, I dissented from that part of the majority’s judgment that obligated OIGA to pay more than the statutory maximum limit of $300,000 for one medical malpractice action. For the same reasons here, I do not agree that OIGA should be obligated for more than one covered claim in this matter.