Title: Coletta v. Yang

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Coletta v. Yang, 88 Ohio St.3d 538, 2000-Ohio-396.] 
 
 
 
 
 
COLETTA, ADMR., APPELLANT, v. YANG ET AL.; ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE 
COMPANY, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Coletta v. Yang (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 538.] 
Automobile liability insurance — Uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage — Court of 
appeals’ judgment vacated and cause remanded to trial court. 
(No. 99-378 — Submitted April 11, 2000 — Decided May 24, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 17289. 
__________________ 
 
Santen & Hughes and William E. Santen, Jr., for appellant. 
 
Bieser, Greer & Landis, L.L.P., Leo F. Krebs and Sean P. Donovan, 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 
this case.  A remand for application of either one of these cases will result in the 
 
 
2
parties and the court below struggling to comply with an order that has no 
relevance to the issues. 
 
This case involves the application of R.C. 3937.44, which relates to liability 
coverage (although appellant consistently argued the merits of R.C. 3937.18[H], 
the uninsured motorrist/underinsured motorist counterpart of R.C. 3937.44).  The 
parties agreed that the applicable insurance policy was issued in December 1996 
and that Am.Sub.S.B. No. 20 (“S.B. 20”) applied.  Although the appellant argued 
in favor of the former version of R.C. 3937.18, as interpreted by Savoie v. Grange 
Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809, the court of appeals 
applied R.C. 3937.18(H) and 3937.44 as amended by S.B. 20. 
 
The appellate court has already determined that the insurance contract was 
entered into in December 1996, more than two years after the enactment of S.B. 
20.  The accident occurred in August 1997.  The appellate court correctly 
concluded that R.C. 3937.18(H) and 3937.44, as amended by S.B. 20, applied.  I 
believe that a Wolfe analysis is unnecessary.  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) 
or to 3937.44.  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.