
    Lehmkuhl, Admr., Appellant, v. Owners Insurance Company, Appellee.
    [Cite as Lehmkuhl v. Owners Ins. Co. (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 93.]
    (No. 93-577
    Submitted November 10, 1993
    Decided December 29, 1993.)
    
      Peeler, McGary & Zopjf, Robert W. Peeler and Carolyn A Potter, for appellant.
    
      Freund, Freeze & Arnold and Gordon D. Arnold; and Thomas B. Bruns, for appellee.
   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 Clermont County is reversed.

AW. 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.  