
    Borsick et al., Appellees, v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Appellant. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellee, v. Borsick et al., Appellants.
    [Cite as Borsick v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 1221.]
    (No. 93-1066
    Submitted January 25, 1994
    Decided March 23, 1994.)
    
      Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A., Dennis E. Murray, Sr. and Kirk J. Delli Bovi, for Borsick et al.
    
      Meyers, Hentemann, Schneider & Rea Co., L.P.A., and Henry A. Hentemann, for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
   In an entry dated December 29, 1993, this court held as follows: “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.” 68 Ohio St.3d 81, 623 N.E.2d 1175.

The previous entry in this case captioned this cause as “Borsick et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.” We now modify the caption of this cause to reflect that there are two cases involved in this appeal as now shown in the caption.

In addition, we modify the December 29, 1993 entry to read as follows:

“As to the case captioned Borsick v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., the appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently allowed.
“As to the case captioned State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Borsick, 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.”

AW. Sweeney, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.

Douglas, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with the majority that State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Borsick should be reversed on the authority of Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809. I dissent from the majority’s decision to dismiss Borsick v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. as having been improvidently allowed. I would reinstate the appeal in that case.

Moyer, C.J., and Wright, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.  