Case Name: TRINOVA Corporation, Appellee, v. Pilkington Brothers, P.L.C. et al.; Libbey-Owens-Ford Company, Inc. et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1994-11-16
Citations: 71 Ohio St. 3d 1202
Docket Number: No. 92-2240
Parties: TRINOVA Corporation, Appellee, v. Pilkington Brothers, P.L.C. et al.; Libbey-Owens-Ford Company, Inc. et al., Appellants.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 71
Pages: 1202–1202

Head Matter:
TRINOVA Corporation, Appellee, v. Pilkington Brothers, P.L.C. et al.; Libbey-Owens-Ford Company, Inc. et al., Appellants.
[Cite as TRINOVA Corp. v. Pilkington Bros., P.L.C. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1202.]
(No. 92-2240
Submitted October 11, 1994
Decided November 16, 1994.)
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and Richard M. Markus; Cooper, Straub, Walinski & Cramer, Richard S. Walinski and Joseph P. Thacker; Hedland, Hanley & John and Peter C. John, for appellee.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Duke W. Thomas and Sandra J. Anderson; Fuller & Henry, Thomas S. Zaremba and Sue A. Sikkema, for appellants.

Opinion:
Defendants-appellants, Libbey-Owens-Ford Company and Pilkington Holdings, Inc., have filed with this court a motion to reconsider our September 14, 1994 decision (reported at 70 Ohio St.3d 271, 638 N.E.2d 572) in the above-captioned matter.
After consideration of appellants' motion, we will treat it as a motion for clarification and grant same to the extent that the first sentence of the third full paragraph appearing at page 277, 638 N.E.2d at 576, should read as follows:
"We are likewise unpersuaded by the argument that LOF was a third-party beneficiary of the contract executed by TRINOVA and Pilkington."
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
A.W. Sweeney and Wright, JJ., dissent.
Resnick, J., not participating.