Case Title: Karr v. Borchardt

Citation: 2000-Ohio-393

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Karr v. Borchardt, 88 Ohio St.3d 535, 2000-Ohio-393.] 
 
 
 
 
 
KARR, ADMR., ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. BORCHARDT ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Karr v. Borchardt (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 535.] 
Automobile liability insurance — Uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage — Court of 
Appeals’ judgment vacated and cause remand to trial court. 
(Nos. 99-219, 99-222, 99-223 and 99-224 — Submitted April 11, 2000 — Decided May 
24, 2000.) 
APPEALS from the Court of Appeals for Seneca County, Nos. 13-98-33, 13-98-36, 13-98-
35 and 13-98-34. 
__________________ 
 
Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A., Dennis E. Murray, Sr., W. Patrick Murray, Charles 
M. Murray and Steven C. Bechtel, for appellants. 
 
Myers, Hentemann & Rea Co., L.P.A., Henry A. Hentemann and J. Michael 
Creagan, for appellee Progressive Insurance Company in case No. 99-219. 
 
Davis & Young and Paul D. Eklund, for appellee Westfield Insurance Company in 
case No. 99-222. 
 
Eastman & Smith Ltd. and John D. Willey, Jr., for appellee Allstate Insurance 
Company in case No. 99-223. 
 
Gallagher, Bradigan, Gams, Pryor & Littrell, L.L.P., and James R. Gallagher; 
Kitch, Drutchas, Wagner & Kenney, P.C., John S. Wasung and Susan Nealey Zitterman, 
for appellee State Farm Mutual Insurance Company in case No. 99-224. 
__________________ 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the 
trial court for further proceedings and consideration, where applicable, of the Supreme 
Court’s decisions in Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 725 N.E.2d 261, and 
Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 723 N.E.2d 97. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
 
2
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurs separately. 
 
MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
Douglas, J., concurring.  I concur for the reasons set forth in my concurrence in 
Stickney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 504, 727 N.E.2d 1286. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent because I do 
not agree that either Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 725 N.E.2d 261, or 
Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 723 N.E.2d 97, 
applies to these consolidated cases.  Case Nos. 99-219, 99-223, and 99-224 were 
filed by the decedent’s administrator and three of the decedent’s adult children, 
who are seeking underinsured motorist coverage under their own individual 
automobile insurance policies for the wrongful death of their mother as a result of 
an automobile accident occurring on July 8, 1996.  Case No. 99-222 was filed by 
the administrator and decedent’s husband, who asserted one proposition of law that 
challenges the constitutionality of R.C. 3937.18(A).  They also argue that the 
husband has a separate claim for damages not subject to the per-person limits of 
the underinsured motorist coverage of his automobile insurance policy, contrary to 
R.C. 3937.18(H). 
 
These cases raise multiple issues that I do not believe may be resolved by 
the application of either Wolfe or Moore.  The issue of whether the insurance 
contract constitutes a new or a renewal contract was not raised in the court below.  
This court will not ordinarily consider a claim of error that was not raised in any 
way in the appellate court and was not considered or decided by that court.  State v. 
Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112, 5 O.O.3d 98, 364 N.E.2d 1364, paragraph two 
of the syllabus;  Toledo v. Reasonover (1965), 5 Ohio St.2d 22, 34 O.O.2d 13, 213 
N.E.2d 179, paragraph two of the syllabus. 
 
 
3
 
Furthermore, I do not believe that the analysis of R.C. 3937.18(A)(1) in 
Moore has any application to an analysis of R.C. 3937.18(H), nor do I agree that 
Moore should be applied to R.C. 3937.18(A)(2).  However, to the extent that the 
majority believes that these cases apply, I respectfully dissent for the reasons set 
forth in the dissenting opinions in Wolfe v. Wolfe, 88 Ohio St.3d at 252-255, 725 
N.E.2d at 267-269, and Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 88 Ohio St.3d at 33-36, 
723 N.E.2d at 103-105. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.