Title: Incarnato v. Metro. Property & Cas. Ins. Co.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

INCARNATO, APPELLANT, 
V. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY 
AND CASUALTY 
1 
INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. 
2 
[Cite as Incarnato v. Metro. Property & Cas. Ins. Co. (1996), ___ Ohio 
3 
St.3d ___.] 
4 
Insurance—Automobile liability— Each person covered by an uninsured 
5 
motorist policy who is asserting a claim for loss of consortium has a 
6 
separate claim subject to a separate per person policy limit -- 
7 
Provision in insurance policy which reaches a contrary result is 
8 
unenforceable. 
9 
 
(No. 96-671 -- Submitted June 25, 1996 -- Decided September 4, 
10 
1996.) 
11 
 
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Tuscarawas County, No. 95AP-
12 
050037. 
13 
_________ 
14 
 
Clark, Perdue, Roberts & Scott Co., L.P.A., and Jami S. Oliver, for 
15 
appellant. 
16 
_________ 
17 
 
2
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is 
1 
remanded for further proceedings on the authority of Schaefer v. Allstate 
2 
Ins. Co. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d ___, ___ N.E.2d ___. 
3 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
4 
 
MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., dissent. 
5 
 
STRATTON, J., not participating. 
6 
 
7