Cuyahoga App. No. 81197, 2003-0hio-1340. Discretionary appeal allowed on Propositions of Law Nos. I, III, and IV.
Franklin v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.
99 Ohio St. 3d 1541
Authorities cited
No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.
Opinion
Moyer, C.J., and O’Connor, J.,
concur but would allow Propositions of Law No. I and II and hold for the decision in 2002-1245 and 2002-1271, Estate of Houser v. Motorists Ins. Co., Auglaize App. No. 2-02-02, 2002-Ohio-2845; would allow Proposition of Law No. Ill and hold for the decision in 2002-0932, Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, Summit App. No. 20784, 2002-0hio-1502; and would allow Proposition of Law No. IV and hold for the decision in 2002-1956, Tucker v. Wilson, Clermont App. No. CA2002-01-002, 2002-0hio-5142.
Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs but would allow all propositions of law without holding.
O’Donnell, J., concurs but would allow Propositions of Law Nos. I and III and hold for the decision in Galatis; and would allow Proposition of Law No. IV and hold for the decision in Tucker.
Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.