Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 89 Ohio St.3d 523, 2000-Ohio-229.] LEISURE, ADMR., ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; FARMERS INSURANCE OF COLUMBUS, INC., APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. LEISURE, ADMR., ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE AND CROSSAPPELLANT, ET AL. [Cite as Leisure v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 523.] On motion for reconsideration and clarification Motion granted as reflected in this entry. (Nos. 98-2110 and 98-2481 July 25, 2000 Decided September 6, 2000.) APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, Nos. 1997CA00417 and 1998CA00001. APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, Nos. 1997CA00420 and 1997CA00445. ON RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION. __________________ The Okey Law Firm, L.P.A., Steven P. Okey and Scott A. Washam, for appellants and cross-appellees. Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman, D. John Travis and Gary L. Nicholson, for appellee and cross-appellant Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc. Davis & Young and Henry A. Hentemann, for appellee and cross-appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Sharon A. Jennings, Assistant Attorney General, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General, in case No. 98-2110. __________________ On June 7, 2000, this court made the following entry in this case: 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. See 89 Ohio St.3d 110, 728 N.E.2d 1078. The court hereby, sua sponte, consolidates these two cases for disposition. The motion for reconsideration and clarification is granted. 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 rectify their failure to timely and properly serve the Attorney 2 General by serving 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, and to permit defendants to file separate answers. The remainder of the judgments of the court of appeals will then be rendered moot. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 3
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.
