Newkirk v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Newkirk v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.

2000 Ohio 357, 88 Ohio St. 3d 402

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 10, 2000

Docket1999-1302

StatusPublished

This text of 2000 Ohio 357 (Newkirk v. State Farm Mut. 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

Newkirk v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 Ohio 357, 88 Ohio St. 3d 402 (Ohio 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 88 Ohio St.3d 402.]

NEWKIRK, APPELLANT, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. [Cite as Newkirk v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 2000-Ohio-357.] Automobile liability insurance—Uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage— Court of appeals’ judgment vacated and cause remanded to trial court. (No. 99-1302—Submitted April 11, 2000—Decided May 10, 2000.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Preble County, No. CA98-05-005. __________________ Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., and D. Arthur Rabourn, for appellant. Freund, Freeze & Arnold and Gordon D. Arnold, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and consideration, where applicable, of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 725 N.E.2d 261, and Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 723 N.E.2d 97. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinions in Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 252-255, 725 N.E.2d 261, 267-269. {¶ 3} I do not believe that Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 33, 723 N.E.2d 97, 103, correctly disposes of appellant’s second SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

proposition of law that challenges the validity of a named-driver exclusion in a contract of insurance. However, to the extent that the majority considers Moore applicable, I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in my opinion in Moore. Id., 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 33, 723 N.E.2d 97, 103. COOK, 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 88 Ohio St.3d 402.]

NEWKIRK, APPELLANT, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. [Cite as Newkirk v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 2000-Ohio-357.] Automobile liability insurance—Uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage— Court of appeals’ judgment vacated and cause remanded to trial court. (No. 99-1302—Submitted April 11, 2000—Decided May 10, 2000.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Preble County, No. CA98-05-005. __________________ Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., and D. Arthur Rabourn, for appellant. Freund, Freeze & Arnold and Gordon D. Arnold, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and consideration, where applicable, of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 725 N.E.2d 261, and Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 723 N.E.2d 97. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinions in Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246, 252-255, 725 N.E.2d 261, 267-269. {¶ 3} I do not believe that Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 33, 723 N.E.2d 97, 103, correctly disposes of appellant’s second SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

proposition of law that challenges the validity of a named-driver exclusion in a contract of insurance. However, to the extent that the majority considers Moore applicable, I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in my opinion in Moore. Id., 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 33, 723 N.E.2d 97, 103. COOK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2000 Ohio 357, 88 Ohio St. 3d 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newkirk-v-state-farm-mut-ins-co-ohio-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack