Newland v. Erie Ins. Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. Newland, Appellant, v. Erie Insurance Company, Appellee. [Cite as Newland v. Erie Ins. Co. (1993), Ohio St. 3d .] (No. 93-788 -- Submitted , 1993 -- Decided December 29, 1993) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 13548. Williams, Jilek, Lafferty & Gallagher Co., L.P.A., and Robert M. Scott; Dwight D. Brannon & Associates and Dwight D. Brannon, for appellant. Jenks, Surdyk and Cowdrey Co., L.P.A., and Edward J. Dowd, for appellee. All issues in this case were decided by this court's recent case of Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), Ohio St. 3d , N.E.2d : "Insurers may contractually preclude intrafamily stacking -- the stacking of uninsured/underinsured limits of polices and coverages purchased by family members in the same household.***" Savoie, supra, paragraph two of syllabus. Because this case involves the stacking of two insurance policies owned by two brothers, but the jurisdictional memoranda received by this court do not reveal whether the brothers lived in the same household, we remand the cause to the trial court to obtain the information from the parties which is necessary to properly apply the intrafamily/interfamily stacking test announced in Savoie, supra, and to apply Savoie. A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., concurs separately. Wright, J., dissents. Moyer, C.J., concurring separately. I concur separately in the judgment entry in the above-styled case. As my dissent in Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, N.E.2d , stated, I do not agree with the law announced in the majority decision. 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. Wright, J., dissenting. I must dissent in continuing protest to the majority's sundry holdings in Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809. As stated in the dissent in Savoie, that holding lacks sound reasoning, reverses ten years of established case law and flaunts the will of the General Assembly. Thus, I feel compelled to remain in this posture until the General Assembly has had the opportunity to undo the damage caused to the public by this unfortunate, result-oriented decision.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
