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

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Gild v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 88 Ohio St.3d 510, 2000-Ohio-421.] 
 
 
 
 
 
GILD ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 
APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Gild v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 510.] 
Automobile liability insurance — Uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage — Court of 
appeals’ judgment vacated and cause remanded to trial court. 
(No. 99-2310 — Submitted April 26, 2000 — Decided May 24, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Portage County, No. 98-P-0056. 
__________________ 
 
The Okey Law Firm, L.P.A., Mark D. Okey and Scott A. Washam, for appellants. 
 
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.P., and David W. Hilkert, 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 
this case.  A remand for application of either one of these cases will result in the 
 
 
2
parties and the court below struggling to comply with an order that has no 
relevance to the issues. 
 
In this case, appellants challenge the constitutionality of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 
20 (“S.B. 20”), in particular R.C. 3937.18(A)(2), regarding the amount of setoff, 
and R.C. 3937.18(H), which limits a loss of consortium claim to the single limit of 
coverage.  The issue of whether the insurance contract constitutes a new contract 
or a renewal was not raised in the court below.  This court will not ordinarily 
consider a claim of error that was not raised in any way in the appellate court and 
was not considered or decided by that court.  State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio 
St.2d 112, 5 O.O.3d 98, 364 N.E.2d 1364;  Toledo v. Reasonover (1965), 5 Ohio 
St.2d 22, 34 O.O.2d 13, 213 N.E.2d 179, paragraph two of the syllabus. 
 
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.