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. 

 

Garlikov, Admr., et al. v. Continental Casualty Company, d.b.a. 

CNA Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile 

Insurance Company. 

[Cite as Garlikov v. Continental Cas. Co. (1993), Ohio 

St.3d .] 

Insurance -- Underinsured motorist coverage -- Wrongful death 

 claim -- Each person who is covered by an 

 uninsured/underinsured policy has a separate claim subject 

 to a per person policy limit. 

 (No. 93-133 -- Submitted November 10, 1993 -- Decided 

December 29, 1993) 

 On Order from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Certifying a Question of 

State Law, No. 92-CV-892. 

 On March 9, 1990, Kenneth Garlikov was killed in an 

automobile accident as a result of the negligence of an 

uninsured motorist. Petitioner, Donald E. Garlikov, the father 

of Kenneth S. Garlikov and administrator of the decedent's 

estate, filed a declaratory judgment action in the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 

asking the court, among other things, to interpret an 

uninsured/underinsured motorists policy with State Farm Mutual 

Automobile Insurance Company in effect at the time of the 

decedent's death. Under that policy, the decedent and several 

members of his family were insureds. The policy contained 

uninsured coverage limits of $250,000 per person and $500,000 

per accident. 

 The United States District Court for the Eastern District 

of Pennsylvania determined that this policy should be 

interpreted according to Ohio law and thus certified the 

following question to us: 

 "Whether all persons who are insureds under the insurance 

policy at issue herein, and who are entitled to recover damages 

under a wrongful death statute for damages arising out of the 

death of a single insured person, are collectively limited in 

their recovery to the single person limit ($250,000) of 

liability established by that policy or whether the per 

occurrence limit ($500,000) applies." 
 

 Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn Co., L.P.A., Kevin R. McDermott, 

Bridgette C. Roman and Harvey Dunn; Kolsby, Gordon, Robin, 

Shore & Rothweiler and Mitchell J. Shore, for petitioners. 

 Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, Francis X. Manning and 

Stephen C. Baker; Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman and Robert 

H. Eddy, for respondent Continental Casualty Company. 

 Hamilton, Kramer, Myers & Cheek and James R. Gallagher; 

Britt, Hankins, Schiable & Moughan and Brian A. Wall, for 

respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. 

 Clark, Perdue, Roberts & Scott and Glen R. Pritchard, in 

support of petitioners, for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of 

Trial Lawyers. 

 Dinsmore & Shohl and Stephen K. Shaw, in support of 

respondents, for amicus curiae, Ohio Association of Civil Trial 

Attorneys. 

 

 Per Curiam. In our recent opinion in Savoie v. Grange 

Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St. 500, N.E.2d , we held: 

 "Each person, who is covered by an uninsured/underinsured 

policy and who is presumed to be damaged pursuant to R.C. 

2125.01, has a separate claim subject to a separate per person 

policy limit." Savoie, supra, paragraph four of syllabus. 

 This holding directly answers the question posed by the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania. 

 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.