MOTION DOCKET, 88 Ohio St.3d 1500 (2000)

727 N.E.2d 923Supreme Court of Ohio.
2000.

MOTION DOCKET00-374. Clark v. Scarpelli.

Montgomery App. No. 17883. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed February 8, 2000, at page 2 and 3:

“Does the [policy language quoted below] unambiguously limit [uninsured-motorist/underinsured-motorist] coverage to a single per-person limit for all wrongful death claims derived from one deceased insured?
“The limits of liability shown in the Declarations apply subject to the following:
“1. The limit for `each person’ is the maximum for bodily injury sustained by any person in any one accident. Any claim for loss of consortium or injury to the relationship arising from this injury shall be included in this limit.
“2. Subject to the limit for `each person,’ the limit for `each accident’ is the maximum for bodily injury sustained by two or more persons in any one accident.
“3. Subject to the law of the state of the occurrence, we will pay no more than these maximums regardless of the number of vehicles insured, insured persons, claims, claimants, policies, or vehicles involved in the accident.”

PFEIFER, J., dissents.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 00-206, Clark v. Scarpelli, Montgomery App. No. 17883.

The conflict case is Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc. v. Atkinson (Oct. 29, 1992), Stark App. No. CA-8931, unreported, 1992 WL 318886.

00-428. Holeton v. Crouse Cartage Co.

Certified State Law Question, No. 98CV7578. On review of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII(6). The court will answer the following questions posed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division:

“1. Does R.C. § 4123.931 violate Article II, Section 35 of the Ohio Constitution?
“2. Does R.C. § 4123.931 violate Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution?
“3. Does R.C. § 4123.931 violate Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution?
“4. Does R.C. § 4123.931 violate Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution?
“5. Does R.C. § 4123.931 violate Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution?
“6. Does R.C. § 4123.931 violate Article II, Section 15 of the Ohio Constitution?
“7. Is R.C. § 4123.931 contrary to Ohio Civil Rule 49(C) and, therefore, invalid and unenforceable?
“8. Does R.C. § 4123.931 constitute an invalid waiver of an injured employee’s right to receive and retain workers’ compensation benefits in violation of R.C. § 4123.80?”

00-448. Lonas v. Kail.

Harrison App. No. 491. On motion for stay of court of appeals’ decision regarding prejudgment attachment, bond, and costs. Motion denied.

00-513. Stevens v. Ackman.

Butler App. No. CA99-03-053. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed March 10, 2000, at page 2:

“[W]hether an `edge drop’ on the berm of a county or city road, in and of itself, constitutes a nuisance within the meaning of R.C. 2744.02(B)(3).”

F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., dissent.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 00-225, Stevens v. Ackman, Butler App. No. CA99-03-053.

The conflict case is Thompson v. Muskingum Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (Nov. 12, 1998), Muskingum App. No. CT98-0010, unreported, 1998 WL 817826.

00-520. State v. Vender.

Medina App. No. 2614-M. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.

00-550. George Shima Buick, Inc. v. Ferencak.

Lake App. No. 98-L-202. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict

Page 1501

exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed March 1, 2000, at page 2:

“Whether R.C. 1925.17 unconstitutionally usurps the Supreme Court’s authority to prescribe rules governing the practice and procedure in Ohio courts by permitting a layperson to represent his corporation.”

PFEIFER, J., dissents.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 00-203, George Shima Buick, Inc. v. Ferencak, Lake App. No. 98-L-202.

The conflict cases are Alliance Group, Inc. v. Rosenfield
(1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 380, 685 N.E.2d 570, and A.B.C. Check Cashing, Inc. v. Leader Builders, Inc. (Apr. 22, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 73969, unreported, 1999 WL 236695.