723 N.E.2d 1113Supreme Court of Ohio.
2000.
MOTION DOCKET99-2293. Linko v. Indemn. Ins. Co. of N. Am.
Certified State Law Question, No. 98CV129S. On review of preliminary memoranda. The court will answer questions 1, 2, and 3 certified by the United States District Court for the Western District of New York:
“1. Whether an insured under an automobile liability policy may challenge the authority of a signatory to an uninsured/ underinsured motorist coverage rejection form when such signatory’s authority is not disputed by the named insureds or insurer.
“2. Whether the language of the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage rejection forms accompanying the subject automobile liability policy satisf[ies] the offer requirements of R.C. 3837.18.
“3. With regard to the scope and validity of the uninsured/ underinsured motorist coverage rejection forms:
“a. Whether each of several separately incorporated named insureds must be expressly listed in the rejection form in order to satisfy the requirement that the waiver be made knowingly, expressly, and in writing by each named insured?
“b. When, on its face, a rejection form was signed by the employee of only one of several separately incorporated named insureds listed in the policy, whether the four corners of the insurance agreement control in determining whether the waiver was knowingly and expressly made by each of the named insureds, or does the parties’ intent, established by extrinsic evidence, control?
“c. If extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent is to be considered in assessing the scope and validity of a rejection form, whether actual authority for rejecting un[insured]/ underinsured motorist coverage on behalf of a named insured under an automobile liability policy can be established by means other than a signed document granting such authority executed prior to the rejection of such coverage?
“d. Whether a parent corporation has implied authority to waive coverage on behalf of its separately incorporated subsidiary corporation when the subsidiary corporation did not provide written authorization to waive un[insured]/ underinsured motorist coverage benefits on its behalf prior to commencement of the policy period?”
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS and PFEIFER, JJ., would also answer question 4.
RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., would not answer the certified questions of state law.
00-32. State v. Johnson.
Muskingum App. No. 9710. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
00-58. State v. Johnson.
Trumbull App. No. 97-T-0227. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
PFEIFER, J., dissents.
00-59. State v. Fannin.
Ross App. No. 98CA2456. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents.
00-62. State v. Bell.
Hamilton App. No. C-790181. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent.
00-67. State v. Correa-Castillo.
Cuyahoga App. No. 74393. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
00-91. Ohio Patrolman’s Benevolent Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty.Sheriff.
Cuyahoga App. No. 75026. On motion for stay of court of appeals’ judgment. Motion denied.
RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent.
00-106. State v. Hill.
Stark App. No. 1998CA0083. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
PFEIFER, J., dissents.
Page 1427