certifying class where plaintiffs alleged that insurer "wrongfully charged them separate premiums for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage on each of their vehicles without disclosing that only one vehicle in the household need have [such] coverage in order to provide such protection to all resident relatives, regardless of which vehicle they may be occupying when injured”
How later courts described this case
- certifying class where plaintiffs alleged that insurer "wrongfully charged them separate premiums for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage on each of their vehicles without disclosing that only one vehicle in the household need have [such] coverage in order to provide such protection to all resident relatives, regardless of which vehicle they may be occupying when injured”
- recognizing that the decision in Martin was superceded by the General Assembly’s enactment of Am. Sub. H.B. 261, effective in September of 1997
- holding that the defen dants may rebut the presumption of reliance on an individual class member basis
- the Supreme Court sua sponte allowed appellants to modify the class they had certified more than two years earlier in the trial court
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Cook, J.,
concurring. While I concur with the reasoning and judgment of the majority, I nonetheless believe that this case did not merit the attention of the court and was, therefore, improvidently allowed. According to Section 2, Article TV of the Ohio Constitution, this court sits to settle the law, not to settle cases. Our exercise here offers no more than “error correction” regarding the application of settled law to the facts of this case.
Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.