Jewett v. Owners Ins. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Jewett v. Owners Ins. Co.

1998 Ohio 417, 82 Ohio St. 3d 1224

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 22, 1998

Docket1997-2282

StatusPublished

This text of 1998 Ohio 417 (Jewett v. Owners 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

Jewett v. Owners Ins. Co., 1998 Ohio 417, 82 Ohio St. 3d 1224 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 82 Ohio St.3d 1224.]

JEWETT ET AL., APPELLEES, v. OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS. [Cite as Jewett v. Owners Ins. Co., 1998-Ohio-417.] Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed. (No. 97-2282—Submitted June 24, 1998—Decided July 22, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Licking County, No. 97-CA-24. __________________ Plymale & Associates and Andrew W. Cecil, for appellees. Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., and Edwin J. Hollern, for appellants. __________________ {¶ 1} The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ COOK, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I respectfully dissent from the decision to dismiss this case as improvidently allowed. This decision is inconsistent with the majority opinion rendered in Ross v. Farmers Ins. Group of Cos. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 281, 695 N.E.2d 732, and today’s decision to order briefing in Hillyer v. Great Am. Ins. Co. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 1224, 696 N.E.2d 598. For the sake of consistency, we should set this case for briefing on the Ross issue as we have done in Hillyer. {¶ 3} We held this case for Ross on the issue of whether to apply the current version of R.C. 3937.18, or the former version of that statute as interpreted in Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809. Although the potentially applicable divisions of former and current R.C. 3937.18 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

are different in the two cases, the core legal issue is the same — what version of R.C. 3937.18 applies? Despite holding in Ross that the date of contracting determines which version of R.C. 3937.18 applies, the majority nevertheless lets stand the Jewett court’s ruling, applying the law in effect on the accident date. I believe that the parties to this case should have the same opportunity given the Hillyer litigants to argue whether the rule in Ross also controls their situation and, if not, what rule should control. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent. LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 82 Ohio St.3d 1224.]

JEWETT ET AL., APPELLEES, v. OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS. [Cite as Jewett v. Owners Ins. Co., 1998-Ohio-417.] Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed. (No. 97-2282—Submitted June 24, 1998—Decided July 22, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Licking County, No. 97-CA-24. __________________ Plymale & Associates and Andrew W. Cecil, for appellees. Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., and Edwin J. Hollern, for appellants. __________________ {¶ 1} The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ COOK, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I respectfully dissent from the decision to dismiss this case as improvidently allowed. This decision is inconsistent with the majority opinion rendered in Ross v. Farmers Ins. Group of Cos. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 281, 695 N.E.2d 732, and today’s decision to order briefing in Hillyer v. Great Am. Ins. Co. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 1224, 696 N.E.2d 598. For the sake of consistency, we should set this case for briefing on the Ross issue as we have done in Hillyer. {¶ 3} We held this case for Ross on the issue of whether to apply the current version of R.C. 3937.18, or the former version of that statute as interpreted in Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809. Although the potentially applicable divisions of former and current R.C. 3937.18 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

are different in the two cases, the core legal issue is the same — what version of R.C. 3937.18 applies? Despite holding in Ross that the date of contracting determines which version of R.C. 3937.18 applies, the majority nevertheless lets stand the Jewett court’s ruling, applying the law in effect on the accident date. I believe that the parties to this case should have the same opportunity given the Hillyer litigants to argue whether the rule in Ross also controls their situation and, if not, what rule should control. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent. LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Ohio 417, 82 Ohio St. 3d 1224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jewett-v-owners-ins-co-ohio-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack