Case Title: Wentling v. Motorists Ins. Cos.

Citation: 2004-Ohio-4778

Docket Number: 20021742 and 20021783

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-09-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Wentling v. Motorists Ins. Cos., 103 Ohio St.3d 118, 2004-Ohio-4778.] 
 
 
WENTLING, APPELLEE, v. MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANIES, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as Wentling v. Motorists Ins. Cos., 103 Ohio St.3d 118, 2004-Ohio-4778.] 
Insurance — Underinsured motorist coverage — Court of appeals’ judgment 
vacated and cause remanded to trial court for application of Ferrando v. 
Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co. 
(Nos. 2002-1742 and 2002-1783 — Submitted July 20, 2004 — Decided 
September 22, 2004.) 
APPEAL from and Certified by the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. 2002 
CA 00027, 2002-Ohio-4672. 
__________________ 
{¶1} 
The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated and the cause is 
remanded to the trial court for application of Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. 
Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 186, 2002-Ohio-7217, 781 N.E.2d 927. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, O’CONNOR and 
O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs separately. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring. 
{¶2} 
I agree with the majority that the judgment of the court of appeals 
should be vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings under 
Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 186, 2002-Ohio-7217, 781 
N.E.2d 927.  Since we are vacating the court of appeals’ judgment, the conflict 
certified to this court under Proposition II will no longer exist.  Although the Fifth 
District has reached conflicting conclusions on this issue (see Welsh v. Indiana 
Ins. Co., Stark App. No. 2002CA00379, 2003-Ohio-5244, 2003 WL 22251403; 
Shirley v. Republic-Franklin Ins. Co., Stark App. No. 2002CA222, 2003-Ohio-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
5369, 2003 WL 22300546; Burkhart v. CNA Ins. Co., Stark App. No. 
2001CA00265, 2002-Ohio-903, 2002 WL 316224; Myers v. Safeco Ins. Co. [Feb. 
18, 2000], Licking App. No. 99CA00083, 2000 WL 329800), we do not know 
how this issue will be resolved upon remand.  Therefore, it would be premature 
for us to decide at this point what appears to be a conflict within the Fifth District.  
We leave this issue to another day when the Fifth District’s final pronouncement 
actually conflicts with pronouncements of other jurisdictions. 
__________________ 
 
Teodosio, Manos & Ward and Barry M. Ward, for appellee. 
 
Day Ketterer Ltd. and Merle D. Evans III, for appellant.  
__________________