Summary
In Gehm v. Timberline Post Frame, 108 Ohio St.3d 1434, 2006-Ohio-421, 842 N.E.2d 61, the court determined that a conflict existed among the Ninth, Fifth, and Eleventh Appellate Districts on the following issue: "Whether the denial of a motion for leave to intervene on behalf of an insurer for purposes of participating in discovery and submitting jury interrogatories is a final appealable order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02."
Summary of this case from Queen City Lodge No. 69 v. Emp. Rel. Bd.Opinion
No. 2005-2384.
February 8, 2006.
Summit App. No. 22479, 2005-Ohio-5222.
MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
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' Journal Entry filed December 2, 2005:
"Whether the denial of a motion for leave to intervene on behalf of an insurer for purposes of participating in discovery and submitting jury interrogatories is a final appealable order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02."
RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent.
Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2005-2137, Gehm v. Timberline Post Frame, Summit App. No. 22479, 2005-Ohio-5222.
The conflict cases are Lent v. Dampier (Dec. 19, 1994), Stark App. No. 94 CA 0217, and Tomcany v. Range Constr., Lake App. No. 2003-L-071, 2004-Ohio-5314.