Thе issue presented is whether the statutory treatment of subrogated claimants in tort actions against political subdivisions is unconstitutional. We hold that it is not and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
The sovereign immunity of municipal corporations in Ohio was judicially abolished in Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc. (1982),
The General Assembly responded by promulgating R.C. Chapter 2744 which governs, among othеr things, tort liability of political subdivisions. R.C. 2744.05 limits the damages recoverable against such entities. It provides in relevant part:
“(B) If a claimant receives or is entitled to receive benefits for injuries or loss allegedly incurred from a policy or policies of insurance or any other source, the benefits shall be disclosed to the court, аnd the amount of the benefits shall be deducted from any award against a politicаl subdivision recovered by that claimant. No insurer or other person is entitled to bring an аction under a subrogation provision in an insurance or other contract agаinst a political subdivision with respect to such benefits.* * *”
Appellees contend thаt R.C. 2744.05(B) denies equal protection of the law to insurance companies who
A statutory classification which involves neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of thе Ohio or United States Constitutions if it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. See Kinney v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (1975),
The statute serves two purposes. It conserves the fiscal resources of political subdivisions by limiting their tort liability. Secondly, it permits injured persons, who have no source of reimbursement for their damages, to recover for а tort committed by the political subdivisions.
The state could have extended sovereign immunity to all claims against a political subdivision. Instead, it сarved out limited classifications in response to reasonable concеrns. Whether the state’s classification best achieves its purposes is not our inquiry. In a rational-basis analysis, we must uphold the statute unless the classification is wholly irrelevant to achievement of the state’s purpose.
Most significantly, a state has a valid interest in preserving the financial soundness of its political subdivisions. See Shapiro v. Thompson (1969),
We hold that R.C. 2744.05(B) is a
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for disposition in accordance with our opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Notes
We are mindful of the decision reached in Greyhound Food Mgmt., Inc. v. Dayton (S.D. Ohio 1986),
We are also mindful that Ohio courts of appeals are divided in answering the constitutional question which is presented to us. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Columbus (1989),
