Title: Fife v. Cent. Ins. Co.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

2 
 
              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. 
 
   Fife, Appellant, v. Central Insurance Companies, Appellee. 
 
  [Cite as Fife v. Cent. Ins. Co. (1994), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
 
Automobile  liability  insurance  — Uninsured  motorist  coverage 
 
     designed  to  protect persons, not vehicles  —  Validity  of 
 
     insurance    policy   exclusion   of   uninsured    motorist 
 
     dependentupon whether it conforms to R.C. 3937.18  —  Policy 
 
     provision  which eliminates uninsured motorist coverage  for 
 
     persons insured thereunder who are injured while occupying a 
 
     motor  vehicle  owned  by an insured, but  not  specifically 
 
     listed in the policy, violates R.C. 3937.18 and is invalid. 
 
(No. 94-1800 — Submitted November 15, 1994 — Decided December 14, 
 
                             1994.) 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Paulding County, No. 11-94- 
 
                               1. 
 
                       __________________ 
 
     Arthur, O'Neil, Mertz & Bates Co., L.P.A., and Eric A.Mertz, 
 
for appellant. 
 
     Clemens, Korhn & Liming and Stephen F. Korhn, for appellee. 
 
                       __________________ 
 
     A discretionary appeal is allowed, the judgment of the court 
 
of  appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to  the  trial 
 
court  to  apply Martin v. Midwestern Group Ins. Co.  (1994),  70 
 
Ohio St.3d 478, 639 N.E.2d 438. 
 
      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 this case.  As my dissent  in  Martin  v. 
 
Midwestern  Group  Ins.  Co.  (1994),  70  Ohio  St.3d  478,  639 
 
N.E.2d438, 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.  For the  reasons  stated  in  the 
 
dissenting  opinions  in  Martin v.  Midwestern  Group  Ins.  Co. 
 
(1994),  70  Ohio  St.3d  478,  639 N.E.2d  438,  I  emphatically 
 
dissent.  We should overrule Martin, supra, and reinstate Hedrick 
 
v.  Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 42, 22 OBR  63, 
 
488 N.E.2d 840.