
    Newman et al., Appellants, v. United Ohio Insurance Company, Appellee.
    [Cite as Newman v. United Ohio Ins. Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 170.]
    (No. 92-1875
    Submitted December 15, 1993
    Decided January 19, 1994.)
    
      David Reid Dillon, for appellants.
    
      Mark P. Seitzinger, for appellee.
    
      Nurenberg, Plevin, Heller & McCarthy Co., L.P.A., and Andrew Krembs; and Robert P. Rutter, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.
    
      Hamilton, Kramer, Myers & Cheek and James R. Gallagher, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys.
   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. The trial court is instructed to apply the Savoie test to the facts of the case.

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.  