[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 92 Ohio St.3d 216.]

DOGANIERO ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Doganiero v. Ins. Co. of Ohio, 2001-Ohio-177.] Insurance—Motor vehicles—Mandatory offering of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage—Amount available for payment for purpose of setoff— Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on authority of Littrell v. Wigglesworth and Clark v. Scarpelli and cause remanded to trial court for further proceedings. (No. 01-159—Submitted May 16, 2001—Decided July 5, 2001.) CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 77075. __________________ {¶ 1} The question certified for our consideration is “whether R.C. 3937.18[A][2] precludes recovery of underinsured motorist insurance benefits where the insured’s underinsured motorist coverage limits are less than or equal to the tortfeasor’s liability coverage limits but the presence of other claimants prevents the insured from recovering any part of the tortfeasor’s coverage.” {¶ 2} Pursuant to our decisions in Littrell v. Wigglesworth (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 425, 746 N.E.2d 1077, and Clark v. Scarpelli (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 271, 744 N.E.2d 719, the certified question is answered in the negative. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of Littrell and Clark, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our decisions in Littrell and Clark. DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

COOK, J., dissenting. {¶ 3} I respectfully dissent based on the reasoning set forth in my dissenting opinion in Littrell v. Wigglesworth (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 425, 746 N.Ed.2d 1077, and in my opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in Clark v. Scarpelli (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 271, 744 N.E.2d 719. MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________ Schulman, Schulman & Meros and Howard A. Schulman, for appellants. __________________

2