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

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

YEPKO, ADMR., ET AL. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. 
[Cite as Yepko v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 414.] 
Insurance — R.C. 2125.02 wrongful death beneficiary who is not named insured 
under the policy can recover under uninsured/underinsured motorist 
provisions of a decedent’s automobile liability insurance policy, when. 
(No. 96-2625 — Submitted May 7, 1997 — Decided September 24, 1997.) 
 
ON ORDER from the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
Ohio, Western Division, Cerifying a Question of State Law, No. 3:95CV7550. 
__________________ 
 
Gary, Naegele & Theado and Thomas R. Theado, for petitioner Ellen Jane 
Yepko, Administrator of the Estate of Anissa Huff, deceased. 
 
Timothy S. Trigilio, for petitioner Ellen Jane Yepko. 
 
Meyers, Hentemann, Schneider & Rea Co., L.P.A., and Henry A. 
Hentemann, for respondent State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. 
__________________ 
 
The following question has been certified to us by the United States District 
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, pursuant to 
S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII: 
 
“Whether a wrongful death claimant who is a statutory beneficiary of an 
insured decedent can recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of the 
decedent’s insurance policy, either individually or through the administratrix of 
the decedent’s estate, if the claimant is not an insured as defined in the policy.” 
 
We answer the certified question in the affirmative on the authority of Holt 
v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 401, 683 N.E.2d 1080, decided 
today. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
2
 
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in Justice 
Cook’s dissent in Holt. 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissents.