[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 68 Ohio St.3d 170.]

NEWMAN ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. UNITED OHIO INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. [Cite as Newman v. United Ohio Ins. Co., 1994-Ohio-507.] Insurance—Underinsured motorist coverage—Wrongful death claim—Each person entitled to recover under R.C. 2125.02 has separate claim subject to any per accident limit—Insurers may contractually preclude intrafamily stacking but may not contractually preclude interfamily stacking— Underinsurance claim must be paid, when—Each person who is covered by an uninsured/underinsured policy has a separate claim subject to a per person policy limit. (No. 92-1875—Submitted December 15, 1993—Decided January 19, 1994.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lawrence County, No. 91 CA 26. __________________ David Reid Dillon, for appellants. Mark P. Seitzinger, for appellee. Nurenberg, Plevin, Heller & McCarthy Co., L.P.A., and Andrew Krembs; and Robert P. Rutter, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers. Hamilton, Kramer, Myers & Cheek and James R. Gallagher, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys. __________________ {¶ 1} 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. The trial court is instructed to apply the Savoie test to the facts of the case. A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

MOYER, C.J., concurs separately. WRIGHT, J., dissents. __________________ MOYER, C.J., concurring separately. {¶ 2} 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. __________________ WRIGHT, J., dissenting. {¶ 3} 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. __________________

2