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. 

 

Merriman, Appellant, v. State Farm Insurance Company, Appellee. 

[Cite as Merriman v. State Farm Ins. Co. (1993), Ohio St. 

3d .] 

Insurance -- Underinsured motorist coverage -- Wrongful death 

 claim -- Insurers may contractually preclude intrafamily 

 stacking but may not contractually preclude interfamily 

 stacking. 

 (No. 93-330 -- Submitted November 10, 1993 -- Decided 

December 29, 1993.) 

 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 91 

CA 1844. 

 

 William H. Allyn, Jr., for appellant. 

 Fosson, Mann & Preston and John L. Fosson, for appellee. 

 Appellant's motion to certify the record is allowed. All 

issues in this case were decided by this court's recent case of 

Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St. 3d 500, 

N.E.2d . "Insurers may contractually preclude intrafamily 

stacking -- the stacking of uninsured/underinsured limits of 

policies and coverages purchased by family members in the same 

household.***" Savoie, supra, paragraph two of syllabus. 

 Because this case involves the stacking of two insurance 

policies owned by a husband and wife, but the jurisdictional 

memoranda received by this court do not reveal whether the 

couple lived in the same household, we remand the cause to the 

trial court to obtain the information from the parties which is 

necessary to properly apply the intrafamily/interfamily 

stacking test announced in Savoie, supra, and to apply Savoie. 

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

JJ., concur. 

 Moyer, C.J., concurs separately. 

 Wright, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. 

 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., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I 

concur in the result, but I must dissent from the reasoning 

herein 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.