Case Title: Black v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Citation: 2001-Ohio-1801

Docket Number: 19990796

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-11-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Black v. Allstate Ins. Co., 93 Ohio St.3d 611, 2001-Ohio-
1801] 
 
 
BLACK ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Black v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 611.] 
Insurance — Motor vehicles — Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and cause 
remanded for determination consistent with, if applicable, Ohayon v. 
Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, Wolfe v. Wolfe, and Csulik v. Nationwide Mut. 
Ins. Co. 
(No. 99-796 — Submitted October 31, 2001 — Decided November 28, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Scioto County, No. 98CA2597. 
__________________ 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is 
remanded for a determination consistent with the court’s decisions, if applicable, 
in Ohayon v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 474, 747 N.E.2d 
206; Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 725 N.E.2d 261; and Csulik v. 
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 17, 723 N.E.2d 90. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent.  Today’s majority reverses 
the court of appeals’ determination that because Ohio law applies to the insurance 
policy involved in this case, the trial court properly decided that the plaintiffs 
were not entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits.  In so doing, the 
majority creates issues where none exist and then uses those issues to remand this 
cause when there is no basis for doing so. 
 
The trial court held that under the applicable Ohio law, the plaintiffs are 
not entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits.  The court of appeals 
affirmed based on the same reasoning.  Even the plaintiffs have conceded that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
under the Ohio law in effect at the relevant time, they would not be entitled to 
recover underinsured motorist benefits.  Thus, this is not a case in which the 
parties dispute which version of Ohio law was in effect at the time in question.  
See Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 725 N.E.2d 261.  This is not a case 
in which a court must yet determine the effect of applying the relevant Ohio law.  
See Ohayon v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 474, 486, 747 
N.E.2d 206, 216, fn. 1.  And this is not even a case in which the plaintiffs contend 
that a claimed ambiguity in the underinsured motorist policy language could 
render Ohio law inapplicable.  Cf. Ohayon, 91 Ohio St.3d at 483-484, 747 N.E.2d 
at 214-215 (discussing Csulik v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. [2000], 88 Ohio St.3d 
17, 723 N.E.2d 90).  Instead, the only issue before this court is whether the law of 
Ohio or West Virginia should determine the parties’ rights and duties under the 
contract of insurance.  Because Ohio law applies, and because the lower courts 
have already determined the case disposition resulting from the application of the 
appropriate version of Ohio law, there remains nothing more for the lower courts 
to do.  Today’s order of remand potentially opens the door for argument over 
issues (regarding ambiguity and which version of what statute applies) that no 
party has suggested exist. 
 
I would therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals based on the 
choice-of-law analysis set forth in Ohayon. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Ruggiero & Haas Co. and John R. Haas, for appellants. 
 
Crabbe, Brown, Jones, Potts & Schmidt, Theodore D. Sawyer and Daniel 
J. Hurley, for appellee. 
__________________