Meece v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Meece v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and consideration, where applicable, of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 725 N.E.2d 261, and Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 723 N.E.2d 97.
Concurring Opinion
concurring. I concur for the reasons set forth in my concurrence in Stickney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 504, 727 N.E.2d 1286.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. I respectfully dissent because I do not agree that the analysis of R.C. 3937.18(A)(1) in Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 723 N.E.2d 97, has any application to an analysis of R.C. 3937.18(H) or to R.C. 3937.44. However, to the extent that the majority believes that these cases apply, I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinions in Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 252-255, 725 N.E.2d 261, 267-269, and Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 88 Ohio St.3d at 33-36, 723 N.E.2d at 103-105.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Meece v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published