Case Title: Miller v. Fling

Citation: 1993-Ohio-121

Docket Number: 19930375

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.                                            
                                                                                 
Miller, Appellant, v. Fling; All America Insurance Company,                      
Appellee.                                                                        
[Cite as Miller v. Fling (1993),    Ohio St. 3d    .]                            
Insurance -- Underinsured motorist coverage -- Wrongful death                    
     claim -- Each person entitled to recover under R.C.                         
     2125.02 has separate claim subject to any per accident                      
     limit -- Insurers may contractually preclude intrafamily                    
     stacking but may not contractually preclude interfamily                     
     stacking -- Underinsurance claim must be paid, when --                      
     Each person who is covered by an uninsured/underinsured                     
     policy has a separate claim subject to a per person policy                  
     limit.                                                                      
     (No. 93-375 -- Submitted November 10, 1993 -- Decided                       
December 29, 1993.)                                                              
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No.                     
9-92-50.                                                                         
                                                                                 
     Lawrence H. Babich, for appellant.                                          
     Wiles, Doucher, Van Buren & Boyle Co., L.P.A., and Thomas                   
J. Keener, for appellee.                                                         
                                                                                 
     Pursuant to Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993),                          
Ohio St. 3d    , the judgment of the Court of Appeals for                        
Marion County is reversed.                                                       
     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,     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., 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.