
    Peace, Appellant, v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellee.
    [Cite as Peace v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 106.]
    
      (No. 93-1716
    Submitted November 9, 1993
    Decided December 29, 1993.)
    
      Ronald G. Kaufman, for appellant.
    
      Flynn, Py & Kruse, L.P.A., James W. Hart and R.E. Digges III, for appellee.
   The motion to certify the record is granted and the cause is reversed and remanded on authority of Savoie v. Grange Mut Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809.

A.W. Sweeney; Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., concurs separately.

Wright, J., dissents.

Resnick, J., not participating.

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.  