Case Title: Fish v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.

Citation: 2004-Ohio-224

Docket Number: 20031732

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-02-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Fish v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 101 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2004-Ohio-224.] 
 
 
FISH ET AL., APPELLEES, v. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 
APPELLANT, ET AL. 
[Cite as Fish v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 101 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2004-Ohio-224.] 
Discretionary appeal not accepted. 
(No. 2003-1732 — Submitted January 14, 2004 — Decided February 4, 2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. 2003CA00036, 2003-
Ohio-4381. 
__________________ 
{¶1} 
The discretionary appeal is not accepted. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and O’CONNOR, JJ., 
concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur separately. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring. 
{¶2} 
I concur with the decision to deny jurisdiction.  However, I write to 
express my view that Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-
Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256, applies to all pending cases where a Scott-Pontzer 
claim has been raised.  See Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 
Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116.  Galatis represents an intervening change in the 
law with respect to these claims and presents a compelling reason for courts 
below to reexamine a point of law.  See Ryan v. Mike-Ron Corp. (1967), 63 
Cal.Rptr. 601, 605-606. 
{¶3} 
In the instant case, the court of appeals determined that the Ohio 
Casualty auto policy provided underinsured motorist coverage by operation of law 
and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover under that provision of the policy.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
The court of appeals remanded for further proceedings.  These proceedings should 
include application of Galatis. 
{¶4} 
I concur with the majority to deny jurisdiction, however, because it 
is not the role of this court to accept jurisdiction over a case merely to apply 
Galatis.  That is not the issue over which the appellant in this case requests 
review, and the courts below are in the position to apply, on remand, the law as it 
now stands. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion. 
__________________ 
 
John S. Coury, for appellees. 
 
Oldham & Dowling and Raymond C. Mueller, for appellant. 
__________________