Peace v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court
Peace v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance, 1993 Ohio 160 (Ohio 1993)
68 Ohio St. 3d 106
Sweeney, Douglas, Pfeifer, Moyer, Wright, Resnick

Peace v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

Opinion of the Court

The motion to certify the record is granted and the cause is reversed and remanded on authority of Savoie v. Grange Mut Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809.

A.W. Sweeney; Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., concurs separately. Wright, J., dissents. Resnick, J., not participating.

Concurring Opinion

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, 620 N.E.2d 809, 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.

Dissenting Opinion

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 flouts 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.

Reference

Full Case Name
Peace, Appellant, v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellee
Cited By
3 cases
Status
Published