Title: Newkirk v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Newkirk v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 88 Ohio St.3d 402, 2000-Ohio-357.] 
 
 
 
 
 
NEWKIRK, APPELLANT, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Newkirk v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 402.] 
Automobile liability insurance — Uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage — Court of 
appeals’ judgment vacated and cause remanded to trial court. 
(No. 99-1302 — Submitted April 11, 2000 — Decided May 10, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Preble County, No. CA98-05-005. 
__________________ 
 
Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., and D. Arthur Rabourn, for 
appellant. 
 
Freund, Freeze & Arnold and Gordon D. Arnold, 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. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
 
2
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent for the reasons set 
forth in the dissenting opinions in Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 252-255, 
725 N.E.2d 261, 267-269. 
 
I do not believe that Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 
33, 723 N.E.2d 97, 103, correctly disposes of appellant’s second proposition of law that 
challenges the validity of a named-driver exclusion in a contract of insurance.  However, 
to the extent that the majority considers Moore applicable,  I respectfully dissent for the 
reasons set forth in my opinion in Moore.  Id., 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 33, 723 N.E.2d 97, 103. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.