Opinion
Submitted November 3, 2003.
Decided November 5, 2003.
The following dispositions of currently pending appeals are hereby entered based on our decision in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256.
Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor and O'Donnell, JJ., concur.
Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
I
{¶ 2} The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are affirmed:
{¶ 3} 2002-1122 and 2002-1459. Alatsis v. Nationwide Ins. Ent. , Franklin App. No. 01AP-1038, 2002-Ohio-2906.
{¶ 4} 2002-1245 and 2002-1271. Estate of Houser v. Motorists Ins. Co., Auglaize App. No. 2-02-02, 2002-Ohio-2845.
{¶ 5} 2002-1336. Withem v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. , Franklin App. No. 01AP-1286, 2002-Ohio-3067.
{¶ 6} 2002-1925 and 2002-2121 . Skala v. Grange Ins. Co., Summit App. No. 20941, 2002-Ohio-5040.
{¶ 7} 2002-1989. Addie v. Linville, Cuyahoga App. Nos. 80547 and 80916, 2002-Ohio-5333.
{¶ 8} 2002-2066 and 2002-2188. Miller v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., Stark App. No. 2002CA00058, 2002-Ohio-5763.
{¶ 9} 2002-2139. Szekeres v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co., Licking App. No. 02CA00004, 2002-Ohio-5989.
{¶ 10} 2002-2158. Thorne v. Amerisure Ins. Co., Summit App. No. 21137,2002-Ohio-6123.
{¶ 11} 2003-0074. Knox v. Travelers Ins. Co., Franklin App. No. 02AP-28, 2002-Ohio-6958.
{¶ 12} 2003-0153. Niese v. Maag, Putnam App. No. 12-02-06,2002-Ohio-6986.
{¶ 13} 2003-0239 . Mlecik v. Farmers Ins. Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 81110,2002-Ohio-6222.
{¶ 14} 2003-0353. Bergmeyer v. Auto Owners Ins. Co. , Stark App. No. 2002CA00228, 2003-Ohio-133.
{¶ 15} 2003-0391 and 2003-0535. Wilke v. Montes, Ottawa App. No. OT-02-003, 2003-Ohio-217.
{¶ 16} 2003-0492 and 2003-0493. Rice v. Buckeye State Mut. Ins. Co., Logan App. No. 8-02-24, 2003-Ohio-390.
{¶ 17} 2003-0500. Jones v. Gue, Summit App. Nos. 21118 and 21136,2003-Ohio-358.
{¶ 18} 2003-0510. Mazza v. Am. Continental Ins. Co., Summit App. No. 21192, 2003-Ohio-360.
{¶ 19} 2003-0524. Wiley v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., Summit App. No. 21145, 2003-Ohio-539.
{¶ 20} 2003-0641. Buckley v. Wintering, Franklin App. No. 02AP-511,2003-Ohio-824.
{¶ 21} 2003-0778 and 2003-0780. Musser v. Musser, Adams App. No. 02CA750, 2003-Ohio-1440.
{¶ 22} 2003-0794 . Heath v. Fid. Cas. Co. of New York, Summit App. No. 21221, 2003-Ohio-1303.
{¶ 23} 2003-0805. Adams v. Fink, Ross App. No. 02CA2660,2003-Ohio-1457.
{¶ 24} 2003-0840 and 2003-0981. Frisch v. CNA Commercial Ins. , Seneca App. Nos. 13-02-36 and 13-02-40, 2003-Ohio-1574.
{¶ 25} 2003-0938. Wheeler v. W. Res. Mut. Cas. Co. , Wayne App. No. 02CA0043, 2003-Ohio-1806.
{¶ 26} 2003-0972. Shanabarger v. Hartford Ins. Co. , Hancock App. No. 5-02-61, 2003-Ohio-1912.
{¶ 27} 2003-1065. Kohntopp v. Hamilton Mut. Ins. Co., Wood App. No. WD-02-033, 2003-Ohio-2793.
{¶ 28} 2003-1107. Davis v. Westfield Cos., Lorain App. No. 02CA008114,2003-Ohio-2339.
{¶ 29} 2003-1122 and 2003-1159. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Estate of Miller, Stark App. No. 2002CA00225, 2003-Ohio-2489.
{¶ 30} 2003-1181. Landers v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., Cuyahoga App. Nos. 81506 and 81531, 2003-Ohio-3326.
{¶ 31} 2003-1183 . Rosenberry v. Morris, Stark App. No. 2002-CA-00399,2003-Ohio-2743.
{¶ 32} 2003-1205. Delong v. Myers, Knox App. No. 02CA000035,2003-Ohio-2702.
{¶ 33} 2003-1268. Jones v. Morehart, Seneca App. No. 13-03-06,2003-Ohio-2995.
{¶ 34} 2003-1271. Hans v. Hartford Ins. Co. , Hamilton App. No. C-020500, 2003-Ohio-3045.
{¶ 35} 2003-1277. Radwandky v. Hartford Ins. Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 82249, 2003-Ohio-3029.
{¶ 36} 2003-1307. Young v. Plageman, Hancock App. No. 5-02-66,2003-Ohio-2996.
{¶ 37} 2003-1327. Rucker v. Davis, Ross App. No. 02CA2673,2003-Ohio-3191.
{¶ 38} 2003-1328. Rucker v. Davis, Ross App. No. 02CA2677,2003-Ohio-3189.
{¶ 39} 2003-1360. Smith v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., Summit App. No. 21311, 2003-Ohio-3160.
{¶ 40} 2003-1375 and 2003-1433. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Metzler, Summit App. No. 21517, 2003-Ohio-3788.
{¶ 41} 2003-1470 and 2003-1471. Hoop v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., Montgomery App. No. 19686, 2003-Ohio-3772. Discretionary appeal and certified conflict accepted, motion to consolidate granted, and judgment affirmed.
{¶ 42} 2003-1477. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Perkins, Paulding App. No. 11-03-04, 2003-Ohio-3586. Discretionary appeal allowed and judgment affirmed.
II
{¶ 43} The judgments of the court of appeals in the following cases are reversed:
{¶ 44} 2002-0803 and 2002-0837. German v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc. (Mar. 28, 2002), Richland App. No. 01CA51-2, 2002-Ohio-1848.
{¶ 45} 2002-1854. Roberts v. Wausau Business Ins. Co., Franklin App. Nos. 02AP-04 and 02AP-05, 2002-Ohio-4734.
{¶ 46} 2002-1986. Shaw v. State Farm Ins. Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 80471, 2002-Ohio-5330.
{¶ 47} 2002-2123. Kekic v. Royal SunAlliance Ins. Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 80693, 2002-Ohio-5563.
{¶ 48} 2002-2198. Vicars v. McCray, Summit App. No. 21087,2002-Ohio-6033.
{¶ 49} 2002-2214. Greene v. Westfield Ins. Co., Stark App. No. 2002CA00114, 2002-Ohio-6179.
{¶ 50} 2002-2228. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. Wagner, Summit App. No. 21013, 2002-Ohio-6119.
{¶ 51} 2003-0195 and 2003-0430. Greene v. Westfield Ins. Co., Stark App. No. 2002CA00126, 2002-Ohio-7210.
{¶ 52} 2003-0213. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. Kuba, Stark App. No. 2002CA00175, 2002-Ohio-7010. Proposition of Law No. III dismissed as having been improvidently allowed.
{¶ 53} 2003-0232. Warren v. Hartford Ins. Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 81139, 2002-Ohio-7067.
{¶ 54} 2003-0301. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Wausau Business Ins. Co., Stark App. Nos. 2002CA00138 and 2002CA00150, 2002-Ohio-7391.
{¶ 55} 2003-0522. Congrove v. Wausau Ins. Cos., Pickaway App. No. 02CA8, 2003-Ohio-1083.
{¶ 56} 2003-0523. Carle v. Stumbo, Pickaway App. No. 02CA2,2003-Ohio-1084.
{¶ 57} 2003-0525 and 2003-0603. Brozovic v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 80868, 2003-Ohio-554.
{¶ 58} 2003-0532. Pilo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., Ashland App. No. 02-COA-038, 2003-Ohio-662.
{¶ 59} 2003-0561 . Dimalanta v. Travelers Ins. Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 81445, 2003-Ohio-562.
{¶ 60} 2003-0729. Sekula v. Hartford Ins. Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 81295, 2003-Ohio-1160.
{¶ 61} 2003-0844. Taylor v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., Franklin App. No. 01AP-922, 2003-Ohio-1446.
{¶ 62} 2003-0845. Grubb v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., Montgomery App. No. 19575, 2003-Ohio-1558.
{¶ 63} 2003-0872 and 2003-0983. Stout v. Travelers Property Cas. Ins. Co., Franklin App. No. 02AP-628, 2003-Ohio-1643.
{¶ 64} 2003-0896. Wilson v. Haimerl, Madison App. No. CA2002-08-017,2003-Ohio-1774.
{¶ 65} 2003-0923 and 2003-1068. Archer v. Ace, USA, Franklin App. No. 02AP-882, 2003-Ohio-1790.
{¶ 66} 2003-0942. Gates v. Nationwide Ins. Co., Clermont App. No. CA2002-10-086, 2003-Ohio-1773.
{¶ 67} 2003-0957 . Lipstreu v. The Hartford, Cuyahoga App. No. 81515,2003-Ohio-1729, 2003-Ohio-1955.
{¶ 68} 2003-1114. Reppl v. Jones, Summit App. No. 21299,2003-Ohio-2350.
{¶ 69} 2003-1250. Hughes v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Franklin App. Nos. 02AP-1254 and 02AP-1256.
{¶ 70} 2003-1254. Hartfield v. Toys "R" Us, Lucas App. Nos. L-02-1218 and L-02-1228, 2003-Ohio-2905.
{¶ 71} 2003-1319 and 2003-1426. Tulak v. Meridian Ins. Co., Tuscarawas App. No. 2002-AP-11-0088, 2003-Ohio-3290 and 2003-Ohio-4139.
{¶ 72} 2003-1394. Pratt v. Safe Auto Ins. Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 81741, 2003-Ohio-3350. Discretionary appeal allowed and judgment reversed.
{¶ 73} 2003-1400. Stubbins v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., Fulton App. No. F-02-031, 2003-Ohio-3456. Discretionary appeal accepted on Propositions of Law Nos. I, II, and III.
III
{¶ 74} The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are reversed in part:
{¶ 75} 2003-0258 and 2003-0415. Poulton v. Am. Economy Ins. Co., Stark App. Nos. 2002-CA-00038 and 2002-CA-00061, 2002-Ohio-7214. The judgment against Indiana Insurance Company is reversed.
{¶ 76} 2003-0825. Edgell v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., Muskingum App. No. CT2002-0008, 2003-Ohio-1666. The finding of coverage under the business automobile liability policy is reversed.
{¶ 77} 2003-0882 . Riggs v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., Franklin App. No. 02AP-876, 2003-Ohio-1657. The finding of coverage under the business automobile liability policy is reversed.
{¶ 78} 2003-1086. Morrison v. Emerson, Stark App. No. 2002CA00414,2003-Ohio-2708. The judgment against Truck Insurance Exchange is reversed.
{¶ 79} 2003-1090. Sagar v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., Franklin App. No. 02AP-1104, 2003-Ohio-2268. The judgment against Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Continental Insurance Company is reversed.
{¶ 80} 2003-1180. Blake v. Midwestern Indemn. Co., Tuscarawas App. No. 2002AP060049, 2003-Ohio-2698. The finding of coverage under the business automobile liability policy is reversed.
{¶ 81} 2003-1182. Walker v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., Butler App. No. CA2002-09-219, 2003-Ohio-2545. The finding of coverage under the business automobile liability policy is reversed.
{¶ 82} 2003-1240. Dalton v. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., Stark App. No. 2002CA00198, 2003-Ohio-2897. The finding of coverage under the business automobile liability policy is reversed.
{¶ 83} 2003-1343. Ryan v. Dolin, Cuyahoga App. No. 81689,2003-Ohio-2738. The finding of coverage under the business automobile liability policy is reversed.
{¶ 84} 2003-1396. Haney v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., Tuscarawas App. No. 2002AP110093, 2003-Ohio-3412. The judgment against Globe American Casualty Company is reversed.
IV
{¶ 85} The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are affirmed in part and reversed in part:
{¶ 86} 2002-0740. Purvis v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (Apr. 12, 2002), Greene App. No. 2001-CA-104, 2002-Ohio-1803. Appellants' third proposition of law is dismissed as having been improvidently allowed. The finding of coverage under the business automobile liability policy is reversed. The judgment of no coverage under the umbrella policy is affirmed.
{¶ 87} 2002-2075. Pahler v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., Stark App. No. 2002CA00022, 2002-Ohio-5762. The judgment in favor of Continental Casualty Insurance Company is affirmed. The judgment in favor of Laura A. Pahler is reversed.
{¶ 88} 2003-0270. Dalton v. Travelers Ins. Co., Stark App. Nos. 2001CA00380, 2001CA00393, 2001CA00407, and 2001CA00409,2002-Ohio-7369. Judgments in favor of Travelers Insurance Company, Grange Mutual Casualty Company, National Union Fire Insurance Company, and Federal Insurance Company are affirmed. The judgment against Grange Mutual Casualty Company under the umbrella policy is reversed.
{¶ 89} 2003-0827 and 2003-0867. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr. v. James, Holmes App. No. 2002 CA 009, 2003-Ohio-4931. The determination of coverage under the business automobile liability policy is reversed. The determination of no coverage under the commercial liability insurance policy is affirmed.
{¶ 90} 2003-0886. Franklin v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 81197, 2003-Ohio-1340. The determination of no coverage under Ezawa v. Yasuda Fire Marine Ins. Co. of Am. (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 557, 715 N.E.2d 1142, is affirmed. The finding of coverage under Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116, is reversed.
{¶ 91} 2003-0925 and 2003-1028. Heidt v. Fed. Ins. Co., Stark App. No. 2002CA00314, 2003-Ohio-1785. The finding of coverage under the business automobile liability policy is reversed. The determination of no coverage under the commercial liability insurance policy is affirmed.
{¶ 92} 2003-1330 and 2003-1331. Amore v. Grange Ins. Co., Richland App. No. 02CA76, 2003-Ohio-3202. Motion to consolidate with case No. 2003-1329, Amore v. Grange Ins. Co., granted. The judgment in favor of Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Ltd., is affirmed. The judgment against CNA Insurance Companies is reversed.
{¶ 93} 2003-1384 and 2003-1714. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Lang, Lake App. No. 2002-L-063, 2003-Ohio-3267. Discretionary appeal and certified conflict accepted. The judgment in favor of Federal Insurance Company and TIG Insurance Company is affirmed. The judgment against Continental Casualty Company is reversed.
V
{¶ 94} The judgment of the court of appeals in the following case is vacated:
{¶ 95} 2003-0427. Gruelich v. The Hartford, Cuyahoga App. No. 80987,2003-Ohio-652. The final order of the appellate court is vacated. The December 26, 2002 order, 2002-Ohio-7229, is reinstated.
VI
{¶ 96} The following stays on briefing are removed:
{¶ 97} 2002-1742 and 2002-1783. Wentling v. Motorists Ins. Co., Stark App. No. 2002 CA 00027, 2002-Ohio-4672.
{¶ 98} 2003-1081 and 2003-1092. Gilchrist v. Gonsor, Cuyahoga App. No. 80944, 2003-Ohio-2297.
VII
{¶ 99} Certified Questions of State Law from the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division:
{¶ 100} 2003-0597. Williams v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. (Mar. 26, 2003), No. 3:02CV7300.
{¶ 101} The following questions of law are moot:
{¶ 102} "1. Was the reduction in UM/UIM coverage executed on January 27, 2000, valid where the insured, a purchaser of a commercial automobile policy, received orally, rather than in writing, information about the availability of UM/UIM coverage, the limits of and premium for such coverage, and a brief description of the coverage?"
{¶ 103} "2. Was coverage provided under a commercial automobile policy for injuries incurred by a passenger in a vehicle not owned or operated by a member of the passenger's family, where `covered autos' is defined as `only those "autos" you own'?"
{¶ 104} "3. If UM/UIM coverage is provided under the commercial automobile policy, is plaintiff required to pay the deductible under that policy?"
{¶ 105} The following question is answered in the negative:
{¶ 106} "4. Is a daughter of an employee of a company that purchased a commercial umbrella policy an insured under that policy, where that policy does not expressly provide coverage to employees' family members?"
{¶ 107} 2003-0406. Keegan v. Am. Internatl. Group, Inc. (Feb. 25, 2003), No. 3:02CV7127.
{¶ 108} Both questions of law, quoted below, are moot and will not be answered:
{¶ 109} "A. Is the Whirlpool Corporation `self insured in the practical sense,' so as to be exempt from R.C. 3937.18?"
{¶ 110} "B. If so, is the applicability of R.C. § 3937.18 affected by any noncompliance with R.C. § 4509.72 Ohio Admin. Code § 4501:1-2-05?"