Case Title: Merriman v. State Farm Ins. Co.

Citation: 1993-Ohio-114

Docket Number: 19930330

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1993-12-29T00:00:00Z

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.                                            
                                                                                 
Merriman, Appellant, v. State Farm Insurance Company, Appellee.                  
[Cite as Merriman v. State Farm Ins. Co. (1993),     Ohio St.                    
3d    .]                                                                         
Insurance -- Underinsured motorist coverage -- Wrongful death                    
     claim -- Insurers may contractually preclude intrafamily                    
     stacking but may not contractually preclude interfamily                     
     stacking.                                                                   
     (No. 93-330 -- Submitted November 10, 1993 -- Decided                       
December 29, 1993.)                                                              
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 91                    
CA 1844.                                                                         
                                                                                 
     William H. Allyn, Jr., for appellant.                                       
     Fosson, Mann & Preston and John L. Fosson, for appellee.                    
                                                                                 
     Appellant's motion to certify the record is allowed.  All                   
issues in this case were decided by this court's recent case of                  
Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St. 3d 500,                       
N.E.2d     .  "Insurers may contractually preclude intrafamily                   
stacking -- the stacking of uninsured/underinsured limits of                     
policies and coverages purchased by family members in the same                   
household.***" Savoie, supra, paragraph two of syllabus.                         
     Because this case involves the stacking of two insurance                    
policies owned by a husband and wife, but the jurisdictional                     
memoranda received by this court do not reveal whether the                       
couple lived in the same household, we remand the cause to the                   
trial court to obtain the information from the parties which is                  
necessary to properly apply the intrafamily/interfamily                          
stacking test announced in Savoie, supra, and to apply Savoie.                   
     A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer,                   
JJ., concur.                                                                     
     Moyer, C.J., concurs separately.                                            
     Wright, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.                           
     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,     N.E.2d    , 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., concurring in part and dissenting in part.  I                   
concur in the result, but I must dissent from the reasoning                      
herein 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.