Heiney v. Hartford

Ohio Supreme Court

Heiney v. Hartford

792 N.E.2d 1134, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1519

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided August 5, 2003·No. 2002-1505·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Franklin App. No. 01AP-1100, 2002-0hio-3718. This cause, here on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, was considered in the manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for summary reversal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for summary reversal be, and hereby is, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be remanded to the trial court to consider whether the insurer was prejudiced under Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 186, 2002-0hio-7217, 781 N.E.2d 927.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that oral argument scheduled for September 16, 2003, be, and hereby is, cancelled.

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

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

Franklin App. No. 01AP-1100, 2002-0hio-3718. This cause, here on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, was considered in the manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for summary reversal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for summary reversal be, and hereby is, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be remanded to the trial court to consider whether the insurer was prejudiced under Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 186, 2002-0hio-7217, 781 N.E.2d 927.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that oral argument scheduled for September 16, 2003, be, and hereby is, cancelled.

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

Heiney v. Hartford, 792 N.E.2d 1134, 99 Ohio St. 3d 1519 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

792 N.E.2d 1134 (Heiney v. Hartford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related