Davis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Davis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2001 Ohio 173, 92 Ohio St. 3d 212

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 5, 2001

Docket2000-1998

StatusPublished

This text of 2001 Ohio 173 (Davis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2001 Ohio 173, 92 Ohio St. 3d 212 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 92 Ohio St.3d 212.]

DAVIS ET AL., APPELLEES, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT. [Cite as Davis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2001-Ohio-173.] Insurance—Motor vehicles—Mandatory offering of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage—Amount available for payment for purpose of setoff— Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 00-1998—Submitted May 16, 2001—Decided July 5, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-194. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ COOK, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} 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. __________________ Clark, Perdue, Roberts & Scott Co., L.P.A., Glen R. Pritchard and Douglas S. Roberts, for appellees. Gallagher, Gams, Pryor, Tallan & Littrell L.L.P., James R. Gallagher and Amy Mass, for appellant. __________________

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 92 Ohio St.3d 212.]

DAVIS ET AL., APPELLEES, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT. [Cite as Davis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2001-Ohio-173.] Insurance—Motor vehicles—Mandatory offering of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage—Amount available for payment for purpose of setoff— Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 00-1998—Submitted May 16, 2001—Decided July 5, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-194. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ COOK, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} 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. __________________ Clark, Perdue, Roberts & Scott Co., L.P.A., Glen R. Pritchard and Douglas S. Roberts, for appellees. Gallagher, Gams, Pryor, Tallan & Littrell L.L.P., James R. Gallagher and Amy Mass, for appellant. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Ohio 173, 92 Ohio St. 3d 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack