Hillman v. Hastings Mutual Insurance

631 N.E.2d 157, 69 Ohio St. 3d 1203, 1994 Ohio LEXIS 954
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 4, 1994·No. No. 92-2330·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The motion of appellant for a clarification is granted. Our entry (68 Ohio St.3d 238, 626 N.E.2d 73) is amended nunc pro tunc. The opinion of the court of appeals is vacated to the extent it deals with issues discussed in Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809, and/or clarified in Newman v. United Ohio Ins. Co. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 1204, 631 N.E.2d 157, decided today. We do not disturb the remainder of the opinion of the court of appeals.

This cause is remanded to the trial court to apply Savoie and Newman.

A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Wright, J., dissents. Moyer, C.J., not participating.

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

Hillman v. Hastings Mutual Insurance, 631 N.E.2d 157, 69 Ohio St. 3d 1203, 1994 Ohio LEXIS 954 (Ohio 1994).

631 N.E.2d 157 (Hillman v. Hastings Mutual Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hobler v. Motorists Mutual Insurance
664 N.E.2d 999 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1995)
Williams v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co.
661 N.E.2d 763 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1994)