OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 

 The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of 

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice 

Thomas J. Moyer. 

 Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's 

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. 

Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative 

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. 

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. 

 NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the 

full texts of the opinions after they have been released 

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised 

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West 

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. 

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume 

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound 

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. 

 

Nationwide Insurance Company, Appellee, v. Corliss et al., 

Appellants. 

[Cite as Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Corliss (1993), Ohio St. 

3d .] 

Insurance -- Underinsured motorist coverage -- Wrongful death 

 claim -- Each person entitled to recover under R.C. 

 2125.02 has separate claim subject to any per accident 

 limit -- Insurers may contractually preclude intrafamily 

 stacking but may not contractually preclude interfamily 

 stacking -- Underinsurance claim must be paid, when -- 

 Each person who is covered by an uninsured/underinsured 

 policy has a separate claim subject to a per person policy 

 limit. 

 (No. 93-1518 -- Submitted November 10, 1993 -- Decided 

December 29, 1993.) 

 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No. 

CA92-11-234. 

 

 Baden & Jones Co., L.P.A., and Thomas P. Erven, for 

appellee. 

 Daniel J. Gattermeyer, for appellant. 

 Pursuant to Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio 

St. 3d 500, N.E.2d , the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals for Butler County is reversed. 

 A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, 

JJ., concur. 

 Moyer, C.J., concurs separately. 

 Wright, J., dissents. 

 Moyer, C.J., concurring separately. I concur separately 

in the judgment entry in the above-styled case. As my dissent 

in Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 

500, N.E.2d , stated, I do not agree with the law 

announced in the majority decision. Nevertheless, it is the 

law on the issue in the above-styled case. As I believe all 

parties should receive equal application of the law announced 

by this court, and only for that reason, I concur in the 

judgment entry. 
 Wright, J., dissenting. I must dissent in continuing 

protest to the majority's sundry holdings in Savoie v. Grange 

Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809. As 

stated in the dissent in Savoie, that holding lacks sound 

reasoning, reverses ten years of established case law and 

flaunts the will of the General Assembly. Thus, I feel 

compelled to remain in this posture until the General Assembly 

has had the opportunity to undo the damage caused to the public 

by this unfortunate, result-oriented decision.