Leisure v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 89 Ohio St. 3d 110

Leisure v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

89 Ohio St. 3d 110 | Ohio | 2000

Lead Opinion

The court hereby, sua sponte, consolidates these two cases for disposition.

The judgments of the court of appeals are affirmed to the extent they vacated the default judgments. The causes are remanded to the trial court with instructions to permit plaintiffs to serve the Attorney General in accordance with R.C. 2721.12 and Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 1066.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. *111Douglas, J., concurs in judgment. Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., dissent.

Concurrence Opinion

Douglas, J.,

concurring in judgment only. While I agree with the ultimate •resolution, I do not subscribe to the majority’s reliance on Cicco v. Stockmaster (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 95, 728 N.E.2d 1066, in disposing of this matter. I believe that Cicco was not properly decided and, accordingly, I continue to adhere to my dissent therein.