Leisure v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Ohio Supreme Court
Leisure v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 89 Ohio St. 3d 110 (Ohio 2000)
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
Leisure v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Opinion of the Court
The court hereby, sua sponte, consolidates these two cases for disposition.
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.
Concurring Opinion
concurring in judgment only. 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.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Leisure, Admr., and v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc., and Cross-Appellant Leisure, Admr., and v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and
- Cited By
- 8 cases
- Status
- Published