Title: Hammock v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Hammock v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. , 102 Ohio St.3d 1232, 2004-Ohio-2833.] 
 
 
HAMMOCK, APPELLEE, v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as Hammock v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 102 Ohio St.3d 1232, 2004-Ohio-
2833.] 
Motion for reconsideration denied. 
(No. 2003-1972 — Submitted April 13, 2004 — Decided June 16, 2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-020783, 2003-
Ohio-5090. 
ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. 
__________________ 
{¶1} 
The motion for this court to reconsider its judgment entry in 
Hammock v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 101 Ohio St.3d 1467, 2004-Ohio-819, 804 
N.E.2d 41, is denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur separately. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring. 
{¶2} 
I concur with the decision to deny reconsideration.  However, as I 
stated in my concurring opinion in Fish v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 101 Ohio St.3d 
1210, 2004-Ohio-224, 802 N.E.2d 149, I believe that Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 
100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256, applies to all pending 
cases where a claim has been raised under Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. 
Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116.  Here, the appellate court has 
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.  The proceedings on 
remand should include application of Galatis. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
__________________ 
 
Kohnen & Patton, L.L.P., and Colleen M. Blandford, for appellant. 
__________________