Witt v. Ohio Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, Nos. 2003-0363 and 2003-0457

Nos. 2003-0363 and 2003-0457 | Ohio | Nov 17, 2004

Lead Opinion

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded for disposition in accordance with Katz v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Assn., 103 Ohio St. 3d 4" date_filed="2004-08-18" court="Ohio" case_name="Katz v. Ohio Insurance Guaranty Ass'n">103 Ohio St.3d 4, 2004-Ohio-4109, 812 N.E.2d 1266.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and O’Connor, JJ., concur. Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents. O’Donnell, J., not participating.

---

Dissenting Opinion

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 2} Because I agree with the analysis of the court of appeals that only one covered claim exists for purposes of Ohio Insurance Guaranty Association’s (“OIGA”) exposure, I respectfully dissent. In Katz v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Assn., 103 Ohio St.3d 4, 2004-Ohio-4109, 812 N.E.2d 1266, I dissented from that part of the majority’s judgment that obligated OIGA to pay more than the statutory maximum limit of $300,000 for one medical malpractice action. For the same reasons here, I do not agree that OIGA should be obligated for more than one covered claim in this matter.