Case Title: Clark v. Nationwide Ins. Co.

Citation: 1994-Ohio-300

Docket Number: 19922583

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1994-03-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
Clark, Appellant, v. Nationwide Insurance Company, Appellee.                     
[Cite as Clark  v. Nationwide Ins. Co. (1994),     Ohio                          
St.3d    .]                                                                      
Insurance -- Underinsured motorist coverage -- Underinsurance                    
     claim must be paid, when.                                                   
     (No. 92-2583 -- Submitted January 12, 1994 -- Decided                       
March 2, 1994.)                                                                  
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No.                   
92AP-485.                                                                        
                                                                                 
     Daniel J. Igoe, for appellant.                                              
     Crabbe, Brown, Jones, Potts & Schmidt, John M. Gonzales                     
and William H. Jones, for appellee.                                              
                                                                                 
     The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the                     
authority of Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio                      
St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809, and the cause is remanded to the                      
trial court for application of Savoie.                                           
     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 the above-styled case.  As my dissent                   
in Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500,                     
602 N.E.2d 809, 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.    I must dissent in continuing                     
protest to the majority's sundry holdings in Savoie v. Grange                    
Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809.  As                     
stated in the dissent in Savoie, that holding lacks sound                        
reasoning, reverses ten years of established case law and                        
flaunts the will of the General Assembly.  Thus, I feel                          
compelled to remain in this posture until the General Assembly                   
has had the opportunity to undo the damage caused to the public                  
by this unfortunate, result-oriented decision.