Full text
Sabo v. MICO Ins. Co.
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 70 Ohio St.3d 492.]
SABO, APPELLANT, v. MICO INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. [Cite as Sabo v. MICO Ins. Co., 1994-Ohio-41.] Automobile liability insurance—Uninsured motorist coverage designed to protect persons, not vehicles. (No. 93-1474—Submitted August 31, 1994—Decided October 5, 1994.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 15875. __________________ Scanlon & Henretta Co., L.P.A., Lawrence J. Scanlon and Ann Marie O'Brien; Colopy & Casalinuovo and Daniel M. Colopy, for appellant. Roderick, Myers & Linton and Kurt R. Weitendorf, for appellee. Dyer, Garofalo, Mann & Schultz, Ronald E. Schultz and Kimberly K. Harshbarger, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to apply Martin v. Midwestern Group Ins. Co. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 478, 639 N.E.2d 438, decided today. A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. MOYER, C.J., concurs separately. WRIGHT, J., dissents for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinions in Martin v. Midwestern Group Ins. Co. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 478, 639 N.E.2d 438. __________________ MOYER, C.J., concurring separately. {¶ 2} I concur separately in the judgment entry in the above-styled case. As my dissent in Martin v. Midwestern Group Ins. Co. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 478, 639 N.E.2d 438, stated, I do not agree with the law announced in the majority decision.
— 2 —
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Nevertheless, it is the law on the issue in the above-styled case. As I believe all parties should receive equal application of the law announced by this court, and only for that reason, I concur in the judgment entry. __________________