Title: Powers v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Powers v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 88 Ohio St.3d 509, 2000-Ohio-420.] 
 
 
 
 
 
POWERS ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 
APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Powers v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 509.] 
Automobile liability insurance — Uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage — Court of 
appeals’ judgment vacated and cause remanded to trial court. 
(No. 99-2260 — Submitted April 26, 2000 — Decided May 24, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County, No. 97CA219. 
__________________ 
 
Matthew C. Giannini and Mary Ann Fabrizi, for appellants. 
 
Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, L.L.P., Timothy D. Johnson and Daniel 
A. Richards, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the 
trial court for further proceedings and consideration, where applicable, of the Supreme 
Court’s decisions in Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 725 N.E.2d 261, and 
Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 723 N.E.2d 97. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurs separately. 
 
MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurring.  I concur for the reasons set forth in my concurrence in 
Stickney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 504, 727 N.E.2d 1286. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent because I do 
not agree that Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 725 N.E.2d 261, or Moore 
v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 723 N.E.2d 97, applies to 
 
 
2
this case.  A remand for application of either one of these cases will result in the 
parties and the court below struggling to comply with an order that has no 
relevance to the issues. 
 
I believe that a Wolfe analysis is unnecessary.  The appellate court 
determined that appellants initially purchased insurance from Nationwide in 1989.  
The court held that the renewal of the policy in March 1995 constituted a new 
contract of insurance.  This is consistent with this court’s holding in Wolfe.  The 
accident in this case occurred in June 1995.  Thus, the appellate court correctly 
concluded that R.C. 3937.18, as amended by Am.Sub.S.B. No. 20 (“S.B. 20”), 
applied. Furthermore, the parties did not appeal this issue; therefore, I believe it 
has been waived. 
 
In addition, I do not agree that the analysis of R.C. 3937.18(A)(1) in Moore 
v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. has any application to an analysis of R.C. 3937.18(H).  
However, to the extent that the majority believes that these cases apply, I 
respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinions in Wolfe v. 
Wolfe, 88 Ohio St.3d at 252-255, 725 N.E.2d at 267-269, and Moore v. State Auto. 
Mut. Ins. Co., 88 Ohio St.3d at 33-36, 723 N.E.2d at 103-105. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.