Title: Jewett v. Owners Ins. Co.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

JEWETT ET AL., APPELLEES, v. OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS. 
[Cite as Jewett v. Owners Ins. Co. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 1224.] 
Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed. 
(No. 97-2282 — Submitted June 24, 1998 — Decided July 22, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Licking County, No. 97-CA-24. 
__________________ 
 
Plymale & Associates and Andrew W. Cecil, for appellees. 
 
Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., and Edwin J. Hollern, for appellants. 
__________________ 
 
The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent from the decision to dismiss 
this case as improvidently allowed.  This decision is inconsistent with the majority 
opinion rendered in Ross v. Farmers Ins. Group of Cos. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 
281, 695 N.E.2d 732, and today’s decision to order briefing in Hillyer v. Great 
Am. Ins. Co. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 1224, 696 N.E.2d 598.  For the sake of 
consistency, we should set this case for briefing on the Ross issue as we have done 
in Hillyer. 
 
We held this case for Ross on the issue of whether to apply the current 
version of R.C. 3937.18, or the former version of that statute as interpreted in 
Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809.  
Although the potentially applicable divisions of former and current R.C. 3937.18 
are different in the two cases, the core legal issue is the same — what version of 
R.C. 3937.18 applies?  Despite holding in Ross that the date of contracting 
 
2
determines which version of R.C. 3937.18 applies, the majority nevertheless lets 
stand the Jewett court’s ruling, applying the law in effect on the accident date.  I 
believe that the parties to this case should have the same opportunity given the 
Hillyer litigants to argue whether the rule in Ross also controls their situation and, 
if not, what rule should control.  Therefore, I must respectfully dissent. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.