Case Title: King v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co.

Citation: 2000-Ohio-403

Docket Number: 19990727 and 19991264

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

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

Document:
[Cite as King v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 88 Ohio St.3d 539, 2000-Ohio-403.] 
 
 
 
 
 
KING, APPELLANT, v. GRANGE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as King v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 539.] 
Automobile liability insurance — Uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage — Court of 
appeals’ judgment vacated and cause remanded to trial court. 
(Nos. 99-727 and 99-1264 — Submitted April 11, 2000 — Decided May 24, 2000.) 
APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Monroe County, No. 807. 
__________________ 
 
James W. Peters, for appellant. 
 
Thornburg & Bean and Charles H. Bean, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
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. 
 
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 do not agree with the majority’s 
application of Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 725 N.E.2d 261.  In these 
cases, appellants asserted one proposition of law regarding the interpretation of 
R.C. 3937.18(A)(2), as amended by Am.Sub.S.B. No. 20 (“S.B. 20”), effective 
 
 
2
October 20, 1994.  The court of appeals determined that the policy in question was 
issued on June 5, 1995, and that S.B. 20, as amended, applies to this case.  The 
court noted that the appellant did not challenge this finding.  The parties did not 
appeal this finding; therefore, I believe they have waived the issue.  I do not agree 
that this court has the authority to remand a case for application of Wolfe when the 
parties have not raised the issue.  A remand for the court below to apply Wolfe 
gives the appellant a second bite at the apple in the event that the policy, according 
to Wolfe’s interpretation, was issued prior to October 20, 1994, so that the law 
prior to S.B. 20 would apply.  This was not the issue before us when we voted to 
allow jurisdiction in this case. 
 
However, to the extent that the majority believes that Wolfe should apply, I 
respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinions in Wolfe, 88 
Ohio St.3d at 252-255, 725 N.E.2d at 267-269. 
 
I also dissent to the majority’s application of Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. 
Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 723 N.E.2d 97.  The majority, without comment, 
merely applies Moore and its analysis of R.C. 3937.18(A)(1) and uninsured 
motorist coverage to the proposition of law regarding R.C. 3937.18(A)(2) and 
underinsured motorist coverage.  To the extent that the majority intends Moore to 
apply to underinsured, as well as to uninsured motorist coverage, I respectfully 
dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Moore, 88 Ohio St.3d 
at 33, 723 N.E.2d at 103. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.