Case Title: Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Citation: 2000-Ohio-229

Docket Number: 19982110 and 19982481

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-09-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 89 Ohio St.3d 523, 2000-Ohio-229.] 
 
 
 
 
LEISURE, ADMR., ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES, v. STATE FARM 
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; FARMERS INSURANCE OF 
COLUMBUS, INC., APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. 
LEISURE, ADMR., ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES, v. STATE FARM 
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE AND CROSS-
APPELLANT, ET AL. 
[Cite as Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 523.] 
On motion for reconsideration and clarification — Motion granted as reflected in 
this entry. 
(Nos. 98-2110 and 98-2481 — July 25, 2000 — Decided September 6, 2000.) 
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, Nos. 
1997CA00417 and 1998CA00001. 
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, Nos. 
1997CA00420 and 1997CA00445. 
ON RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION. 
__________________ 
 
The Okey Law Firm, L.P.A., Steven P. Okey and Scott A. Washam, for 
appellants and cross-appellees. 
 
2
 
Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman, D. John Travis and Gary L. Nicholson, 
for appellee and cross-appellant Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc. 
 
Davis & Young and Henry A. Hentemann, for appellee and cross-appellant 
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Sharon A. Jennings, Assistant 
Attorney General, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General, in 
case No. 98-2110. 
__________________ 
 
On June 7, 2000, this court made the following entry in this case: 
 
“The court hereby, sua sponte, consolidates these two cases for disposition. 
 
“The judgments of the court of appeals are affirmed to the extent they 
vacated the default judgments.  The causes are remanded to the trial court with 
instructions to permit plaintiffs to serve the Attorney General in accordance with 
R.C. 2721.12 and Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 
1066.”  See 89 Ohio St.3d 110, 728 N.E.2d 1078. 
 
The court hereby, sua sponte, consolidates these two cases for disposition.  
The motion for reconsideration and clarification is granted. 
 
The judgments of the court of appeals are affirmed to the extent they vacated 
the default judgments.  The causes are remanded to the trial court with instructions 
to permit plaintiffs to rectify their failure to timely and properly serve the Attorney 
 
3
General by serving the Attorney General in accordance with R.C. 2721.12 and 
Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 1066, and to permit 
defendants to file separate answers.  The remainder of the judgments of the court 
of appeals will then be rendered moot. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.