Title: Young v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Young v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 105 Ohio St.3d 1252, 2005-Ohio-1941.] 
 
 
YOUNG ET AL., APPELLEES, v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL.; 
MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as Young v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 105 Ohio St.3d 1252, 2005-Ohio-1941.] 
Appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted. 
(No. 2004-0403 — Submitted March 2, 2005 — Decided May 11, 2005.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 82395, 2004-Ohio-
54. 
__________________ 
{¶1} 
The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently 
accepted. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 
{¶2} 
The majority has decided to dismiss this case as having been 
improvidently accepted.  Counsel represented during oral argument that there are 
only two cases remaining within the judicial system that would be affected by this 
court’s decision.  However, because we do not know the number of cases with 
this issue that still may be pending at the trial level, I believe that we should 
address the merits of this case.  Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 
{¶3} 
The parties agree that the most recent two-year guaranteed policy 
period under Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 725 N.E.2d 261, began on 
October 1, 1999, when the Motorists policy was renewed.  However, the General 
Assembly amended R.C. 3937.31, effective September 21, 2000, and added 
subsection (E), which provides: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶4} 
“Nothing in this section prohibits an insurer from incorporating 
into a policy any changes that are permitted or required by this section or other 
sections of the Revised Code at the beginning of any policy period within the two-
year period set forth in division (A) of this section.”  2000 Sub.S.B. No. 267, 148 
Ohio Laws, Part V, 11385. 
{¶5} 
I believe that when the new six-month renewal period began on 
October 1, 2000, the statutory changes in Sub.S.B. 267 were incorporated into the 
Motorists policy.  This is not a retroactive application of new legislation, but 
rather prospective application to a renewal after the amendment went into effect. 
{¶6} 
Furthermore, application of amended R.C. 3937.31 to this policy 
would effectuate the General Assembly’s articulated public policy.  The 
uncodified law of Sub.S.B. 267, Section 5, states: 
{¶7} 
“It is the intent of the General Assembly in amending section 
3937.31 of the Revised Code to make it clear that an insurer may modify the 
terms and conditions of any automobile insurance policy to incorporate changes 
that are permitted or required by that section and other sections of the Revised 
Code at the beginning of any policy period within the two-year period set forth in 
division (A) of that section.”  148 Ohio Laws, Part V, 11386. 
{¶8} 
From its inception, the Motorists policy was renewable every six 
months as permitted by R.C. 3937.31.  Statutory changes in the law were 
incorporated in the policy upon its renewal every six months until Wolfe’s 
interpretation of R.C. 3937.31 prohibited modifications except at two-year 
intervals.  But when the General Assembly enacted Sub.S.B. 267, superseding the 
interpretation given R.C. 3937.31 by Wolfe, the terms of the insurance contract 
prevailed.  With Wolfe no longer effective, the parties were once again bound by 
the terms of the insurance contract. 
{¶9} 
I believe that R.C. 3937.31, as amended by Sub.S.B. 267, applied 
to the Motorists’ policy on October 1, 2000, the first renewal date following the 
January Term, 2005 
3 
amendment’s effective date of September 21, 2000.  Therefore, I would reverse 
the judgment of the court of appeals and remand to the trial court with instructions 
to enter judgment in favor of Motorists. 
 
O’CONNOR and LANZINGER, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting 
opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Grant A. Goodman, for appellees. 
 
Davis & Young, Henry A. Hentemann, and J. Michael Creagan, for 
appellant. 
 
Connelly, Jackson & Collier, L.L.P., and Anthony E. Turley, urging 
affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers. 
__________________