holding "that Ohio Civ. R. 15(C) may be employed to substitute a party named in the amended pleading for a party misidentified in the original pleading to permit the amended pleading to relate back to the date of the original pleading provided the requirements of the rule are otherwise satisfied. However, the rule may not be employed to assert a claim against an additional party while retaining a party against whom a claim was asserted in the original pleading."
How later courts described this case
- holding "that Ohio Civ. R. 15(C) may be employed to substitute a party named in the amended pleading for a party misidentified in the original pleading to permit the amended pleading to relate back to the date of the original pleading provided the requirements of the rule are otherwise satisfied. However, the rule may not be employed to assert a claim against an additional party while retaining a party against whom a claim was asserted in the original pleading."
- determining that Ohio’s Rule 15(c), which is similar to our Rule 15(c), allows for relation back when a party is substituted but not when a party is added while retaining a party named in the original suit
- holding that where the tortfeasor’s insurer has declared insolvency subsequent to the accident, the insured’s UM claim "accrues on the date that the insured receives notice of the insolvency”
- noting that an earlier decision of the court was "of questionable precedential value inasmuch as it was a plurality opinion which failed to receive the requisite support of four justices of this court in order to constitute controlling law"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Barbee v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance, 130 Ohio St. 3d 96 (2011)
{¶ 34} We also distinguished Kraly in Angel v. Reed, 119 Ohio St.3d 73, 2008-Ohio-3193, 891 N.E.2d 1179.
Distinguished by Angel v. Reed, Unpublished Decision (3-9-2007), 2007 Ohio 1069 (2007)
{¶ 11} Kraly is distinguishable on this point.
Distinguished by Ross v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, 82 Ohio St. 3d 281 (1998)
Id. at 634, 635 N.E.2d at 328. Kraly is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.
The opinion
Douglas, J.,
concurring. I concur in the syllabus and judgment of Justice A. William Sweeney’s well-reasoned opinion. I write separately only for the purpose of calling attention of the bench and bar, and to others who may be researching the issues decided in Colvin v. Globe Am. Cas. Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 293 , 23 O.O.3d 281 , 432 N.E.2d 167 , and Duriak v. Globe Am. Cas. Co. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 70 , 28 OBR 168, 502 N.E.2d 620 , to the existence of Miller v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 619 , 635 N.E.2d 317 .