Ohio Supreme Court, 2004

Fish v. Ohio Casualty Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided February 4, 2004 · Connor, Donnell, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

101 Ohio St. 3d 1210; 802 N.E.2d 149

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Pollard v. State Farm Fire & Casualty (6th Cir. 2005)
Sheaffer v. Westfield Insurance (Ohio 2006)
Fish v. Ohio Casualty Ins., Unpublished Decision (3-7-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
Pillo v. Stricklin, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Parks v. Rice (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Wright v. Cincinnati Insurance (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Pelc v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (6-28-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Wilson v. Haimerl (Ohio 2004)
Indiana Insurance v. Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc. (Ohio 2004)
Giles v. Simonds Cincinnati Insurance Companies (Ohio 2004)
Welsh v. Indiana Insurance (Ohio 2004)
Hammock v. Cincinnati Insurance (Ohio 2004)
Hopkins v. Dyer (Ohio 2004)
Welsh v. Indiana Ins., Unpublished Decision (3-7-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
Weaver v. Continental Casualty Company, Unpublished Decision (2-20-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is not accepted.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and O’Connor, JJ., concur. Lundberg Stratton and O’Donnell, JJ., concur separately.

Concurring Opinion

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

concurring.

{¶ 2} I concur with the decision to deny jurisdiction. However, I write to express my view that Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256, applies to all pending cases where a Scottr-Pontzer claim has been raised. See Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116. Galatis represents an intervening change in the law with respect to these claims and presents a compelling reason for courts below to reexamine a point of law. See Ryan v. Mike-Ron Corp. (1967), 63 Cal.Rptr. 601, 605-606.

{¶ 3} In the instant case, the court of appeals determined that the Ohio Casualty auto policy provided underinsured motorist coverage by operation of law and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover under that provision of the policy. The court of appeals remanded for further proceedings. These proceedings should include application of Galatis.

{¶ 4} I concur with the majority to deny jurisdiction, however, because it is not the role of this court to accept jurisdiction over a case merely to apply Galatis. That is not the issue over which the appellant in this case requests review, and the courts below are in the position to apply, on remand, the law as it now stands.

O’Donnell, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion. John S. Coury, for appellees. Oldham & Dowling and Raymond C. Mueller, for appellant.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.