
    Borsick et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
    [Cite as Borsick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 81.]
    (No. 93-1066
    Submitted November 10, 1993
    Decided December 29, 1993.)
    
      Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A., Dennis E. Murray, Sr., and Kirk J. Delli Bovi, for appellants and cross-appellees.
    
      Meyers, Hentemann, Schneider & Rea Co., L.P.A., and Henry A. Hentemann, for appellee and cross-appellant.
   Pursuant to Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Erie County is reversed.

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, 620 N.E.2d 809, 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 flouts 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.  