DocketNumber: Case No. 03AP-897.
Citation Numbers: 2004 Ohio 1733
Judges: KLATT, J.
Filed Date: 4/6/2004
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} When presented with a motion for reconsideration, an appellate court must determine whether the motion calls to the court's attention an obvious error in its decision or raises an issue for consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been.State v. Rowe (Feb. 10, 1994), Franklin App. No. 93AP-1763;Columbus v. Hodge (1987),
{¶ 3} In our March 4, 2004 opinion, this court dismissed the instant appeal because the decision from which appellants appealed, the trial court's June 16, 2003 denial of appellants' motion for a declaratory judgment, is not a final appealable order. As we explained in our opinion, "[a]n order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding" is a final appealable order pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 4} In their motion for reconsideration, appellants argue that the trial court's June 16, 2003 decision is a final appealable order pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 5} R.C.
{¶ 6} Even assuming, as we did in our March 4, 2004 opinion, that a substantial right exists here, appellants' argument must fail because the trial court's June 16, 2003 decision only resolved one legal issue arising from the breach of contract claim against defendant-appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"). Namely, the trial court determined that Corbitt's "uninsured/underinsured motorist claim is subject to a single $100,000 per person limit, without regard to the number of tortfeasors or vehicles involved." Contrary to appellants' assertion, this holding does not constrain appellants' ability to prove State Farm is liable for breach of the insurance policy and, in the event the trial court finds State Farm liable, to prove damages. Rather, the trial court's holding simply determined that in the event appellants prove liability and damages, Corbitt's recovery is capped at $100,000 pursuant to the policy terms.
{¶ 7} Appellants, however, argue that the June 13, 2003 decision determined the instant action because Corbitt's damages are in excess of $100,000, and by capping damages at the $100,000 per person limit, the trial court "essentially calculated" the damage amount. Appellants' argument is unavailing because they have yet to prove, and the trial court has yet to determine, the amount of Corbitt's damages. As the trial court has not resolved this element of appellants' breach of contract claim, their action is not determined. Accordingly, the trial court's June 16, 2003 decision is not a final appealable order pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 8} Second, appellants argue that the June 16, 2003 decision is a final appealable order under R.C.
{¶ 9} Moreover, we are not persuaded by appellants' argument that judicial economy is best served by an adjudication on the merits of this appeal. R.C.
{¶ 10} For the foregoing reasons, appellants' motion for reconsideration is denied.
Motion for reconsideration denied.
Lazarus, P.J., and Petree, J., concur.