Case Title: State ex rel. Indiana Ins. Co. v. Reinbold

Citation: 2004-Ohio-6507

Docket Number: 20041238

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Indiana Ins. Co. v. Reinbold , 104 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2004-Ohio-6507.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. INDIANA INSURANCE COMPANY v. REINBOLD, JUDGE, ET 
AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Indiana Ins. Co. v. Reinbold, 104 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2004-
Ohio-6507.] 
Mandamus — Motion to dismiss granted. 
(No. 2004-1238 — Submitted October 12, 2004 — Decided December 15, 2004.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
ON MOTION TO INTERVENE, MOTION TO STRIKE, AND MOTIONS TO DISMISS. 
__________________ 
 
{¶1} 
This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a 
writ of mandamus.  Upon consideration of the motions of Terry and Nancy 
Poulton for leave to intervene as respondents and to dismiss, relator's motion to 
strike the Poultons' motion to dismiss, and respondents' motions to dismiss, 
{¶2} 
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for leave to 
intervene be, and hereby is, granted and that Terry and Nancy Poulton be, and 
hereby are, permitted to intervene as respondents. 
{¶3} 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that relator's motion to strike the 
Poultons' motion to dismiss be, and hereby is, denied. 
{¶4} 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because relator has an adequate 
remedy at law, respondents' motions to dismiss be, and hereby are, granted. 
{¶5} 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this cause be, and hereby is, 
dismissed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, O’CONNOR and 
O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs separately. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring. 
{¶6} 
I concur that this case must be dismissed because relator has an 
adequate remedy at law.  The underlying case, Poulton v. Am. Economy Ins. Co., 
was one of the many cases we held for our decision in Westfield Ins. Co. v. 
Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256.  We resolved 
Poulton in a one-line entry:  “The judgment against Indiana Insurance Company 
is reversed.”  In re Uninsured & Underinsured Motorist Coverage Cases, 100 
Ohio St.3d 302, 2003-Ohio-5888, 798 N.E.2d 1077, ¶ 75.  By this entry, I believe 
we intended to reverse the judgment against Indiana Insurance Company that was 
based upon a Scott-Pontzer cause of action.  See Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. 
Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116.  Our entry did not 
differentiate between the auto and umbrella policies because Galatis applied to 
any judgment that was based on Scott-Pontzer, where the injured party was not in 
the course and scope of employment, or that was based upon the related case of 
Ezawa v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Am. (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 557, 715 
N.E.2d 1142.  Our entry in Poulton v. Am. Economy Ins. Co. established the law 
of the case. 
{¶7} 
Nevertheless, because Indiana Insurance Company has an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of law, and in fact has an appeal pending, 
mandamus is not proper.  This case must follow its ordinary course through the 
appellate court. 
__________________ 
 
Pelini & Fischer, Ltd., Craig G. Pelini and Julie A. Geiser, for relator. 
 
John D. Ferrero, Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sharon D. 
Miller, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Stark County Common 
Pleas Judge Richard Reinbold. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Holly J. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 
General, for respondent Fifth District Court of Appeals. 
 
John S. Coury, for intervenors Terry and Nancy Poulton.