WEEKEND MEMOS

'Weekend memos' give our editorial writers a chance to express their own opinions, comment on topics they have been writing about, or take a lighter approach. The opinions in 'Memos' do not always follow the Enquirer's editorial positions.

Scott-Pontzer. Scott-Pontzer. Scott-Pontzer. Scott-Pontzer.

Say it a few times fast, and you might get the giggles. But that would be nothing compared to the gales of derisive laughter this 1999 Ohio Supreme Court decision has elicited from observers across the nation.

Actually, Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. was one of several cases in which the court re-defined - that's a polite way of putting it - Ohio's insurance law. Using tortured logic to define such matters as the dimensions of "umbrella policies," the scope of uninsured/underinsured coverage, and the meaning of the word "you," the court ruled 4-3 that an employee can claim coverage under his company's auto insurance 24 hours a day - on or off work, on vacation, in the family car, whatever. A follow-up case, Ezawa vs.Yasuda, established that the employee's dependents also are covered.

This opened up a $1.5 billion can of worms for insurers and employers, especially when the court added that claims going back as far as 15 years could be re-opened. Scouring old cases for potential new windfalls became a legal cottage industry in Ohio. More than 90 such cases are pending. Most important, the rulings were just plain confusing for all parties.

Even an employee who might benefit from such coverage would have to admit this is nuts. Law reviews have used Scott-Pontzer as a case study in how not to do it. In 2001, a federal district judge blasted the court for making a "mess" of insurance law, and several lower courts have added their criticism.

So it's little wonder that on Wednesday, the court jumped at the chance to overturn Scott-Pontzer. By a 4-3 vote, it ruled in Westfield Insurance Co. vs. Galatis that companies are not liable for insurance claims by employees in non-work-related accidents. The impetus behind this reversal: Last November, former Lt. Gov. Maureen O'Connor was elected to the court to replace retiring Justice Andrew Douglas, who had supported Scott-Pontzer. O'Connor cited the case in her campaign, saying she'd bring judicial restraint and common sense to the court's deliberations.

But even some justices who supported the 1999 ruling may have begun to recognize it was a mistake, although they opposed Wednesday's reversal: Justice Alice Robie Resnick dissented because she thought Westfield vs. Galatis was the wrong case with which to overturn Scott-Pontzer. Justice Francis Sweeney, evidently a believer in judicial infallibility, dissented because he thinks courts should not overturn prior decisions.

But Chief Justice Thomas Moyer took pains to explain this was an extraordinary issue calling for an extraordinary remedy. "No one should assume that our decision heralds a new era in which prior cases of this court will be routinely or arbitrarily overruled," he wrote. That's good. Even though the new 4-3 majority might be tempted to reverse some of the court's more activist rulings of the past few years, it would be wiser to refrain. A court that signals it's willing to ignore precedent on a whim would create more legal havoc than the dread Scott-Pontzer ever could.

Wednesday's ruling was simply the court's chance to say to the world, "OK, you can stop laughing now."

Ray Cooklis