Title: Rogers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Rogers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 88 Ohio St.3d 546, 2000-Ohio-410.] 
 
 
 
 
 
ROGERS, EXR., ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 
COMPANY, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Rogers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 546.] 
Automobile liability insurance — Uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage — Court of 
appeals’ judgment vacated and cause remanded to trial court. 
(No. 99-1602 — Submitted April 11, 2000 — Decided May 24, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No. CA98-10-215. 
__________________ 
 
Roger N. Walk and Charles H. Bartlett, Jr., for appellants. 
 
Gallagher, Bradigan, Gams, Pryor & Littrell, L.L.P., and James R. Gallagher, 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 
 
 
2
this case.  A remand for application of either one of these cases will result in the 
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. 3937.18(H).  Although the 
appellants 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), as amended by Am.Sub.S.B. No. 20 
(“S.B. 20”).  The appellate court noted that the initial insurance policy in this case 
was issued on September 10, 1993.  Because the accident occurred on January 22, 
1996, the court determined that the trial court properly applied R.C. 3937.18(H) as 
amended. 
 
Appellants asserted one proposition of law in this case, arguing the opposite 
of the court’s holding in Wolfe, that the automatic renewal was simply a 
continuation of the initial contract.  Per Wolfe, the initial policy that was issued in 
September 1993 was in effect for a guaranteed two-year period.  When the policy 
was renewed in September 1995, per Wolfe, this renewal constituted a new 
contract for another guaranteed two-year period.  The accident occurred in January 
1996.  The appellate court correctly concluded that R.C. 3937.18(H), as amended 
by S.B. 20, applied. 
 
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).  
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.