Title: Witt v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Assn.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Witt v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Assn., 103 Ohio St.3d 557, 2004-Ohio-5846.] 
 
 
WITT ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. OHIO INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, 
APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Witt v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Assn., 103 Ohio St.3d 557, 2004-Ohio-5846.] 
Insurance — Liability — Physicians — Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and 
cause remanded for disposition in accordance with Katz v. Ohio Ins. 
Guar. Assn. 
(Nos. 2003-0363 and 2003-0457 — Submitted October 13, 2004 — Decided 
November 17, 2004.) 
APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 
80509, 2003-Ohio-278. 
__________________ 
{¶1} 
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is 
remanded for disposition in accordance with Katz v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Assn., 103 
Ohio St.3d 4, 2004-Ohio-4109, 812 N.E.2d 1266. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and O’CONNOR, J.J., 
concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 
{¶2} 
Because I agree with the analysis of the court of appeals that only 
one covered claim exists for purposes of Ohio Insurance Guaranty Association’s 
(“OIGA”) exposure, I respectfully dissent.  In Katz v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Assn., 103 
Ohio St.3d 4, 2004-Ohio-4109, 812 N.E.2d 1266, I dissented from that part of the 
majority’s judgment that obligated OIGA to pay more than the statutory 
maximum limit of $300,000 for one medical malpractice action.  For the same 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
reasons here, I do not agree that OIGA should be obligated for more than one 
covered claim in this matter. 
__________________ 
 
Berns, Ockner & Greenberger, L.L.C., Sheldon I. Berns and Paul M. 
Greenberger, for appellants. 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., F. James Foley and Lisa Babish 
Forbes, for appellee. 
______________________