[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 89 Ohio St.3d 110.]

LEISURE, ADMR., ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; FARMERS INSURANCE OF COLUMBUS, INC., APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. LEISURE, ADMR., ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE AND CROSS- APPELLANT, ET AL. [Cite as Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2000-Ohio-433.] Civil procedure—Judgments of court of appeals affirmed to the extent they vacated default judgments and causes remanded to trial court for further proceedings in accordance with R.C. 2721.12 and Cicco v. Stockmaster. (Nos. 98-2110 and 98-2481—Submitted February 23, 2000—Decided June 7, 2000.) APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, Nos. 1997CA00417 and 1998CA00001. APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, Nos. 1997CA00420 and 1997CA00445. __________________ The Okey Law Firm, L.P.A., Steven P. Okey and Scott A Washam, for appellants and cross-appellees. Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman, D. John Travis and Gary L. Nicholson, for appellee and cross-appellant Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc. Davis & Young and Henry A. Hentemann, for appellee and cross-appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Sharon A. Jennings, Assistant Attorney General, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General, in case No. 98-2110. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

__________________ {¶ 1} The court hereby, sua sponte, consolidates these two cases for disposition. {¶ 2} The judgments of the court of appeals are affirmed to the extent they vacated the default judgments. The causes are remanded to the trial court with instructions to permit plaintiffs to serve the Attorney General in accordance with R.C. 2721.12 and Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 1066. MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment. PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., dissent. __________________ DOUGLAS, J., concurring in judgment only. {¶ 3} While I agree with the ultimate resolution, I do not subscribe to the majority’s reliance on Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 1066, in disposing of this matter. I believe that Cicco was not properly decided and, accordingly, I continue to adhere to my dissent therein. __________________

2