COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT 
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 
                             NO. 69210
JOSEPH TOMARO                    :
                                 :  ACCELERATED DOCKET
                                 :
        PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT      :    JOURNAL ENTRY 
                                 :
v.                               :        AND 
                                 : 
HERITAGE MUTUAL INSURANCE        :      OPINION 
   COMPANY                       :
                                 :     PER CURIAM 
        DEFENDANT-APPELLEE       :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF DECISION:                     FEBRUARY 29, 1996  
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:         Civil appeal from
                                 Court of Common Pleas,
                                 Case No. CV-276194.
JUDGMENT:                        DISMISSED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:                                       
APPEARANCES:  
For Plaintiff-appellant:         David A. Kulwicki, Esq.
                                 Stuart, Garson & Associates
                                 1600 Rockefeller Building
                                 614 Superior Avenue, N.W.
                                 Cleveland, Ohio  44113
For Defendant-appellee:          Walter R. Matchinga, Esq.
                                 Edward J. Stoll, Jr., Esq.
                                 Quandt, Giffels & Buck Co.
                                 800 Leader Building
                                 Cleveland, Ohio  44114
                               - 2 -
PER CURIAM:  
     An accelerated appeal  is authorized  pursuant to App.R.  11.1
and  Loc.App.R. 25.   The  purpose of an  accelerated docket  is to
allow  an  appellate court  to  render  a brief  and  conclusionary
decision.  Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio
App.3d 158; App.R. 11.1(E).
     Plaintiff-appellant Joseph  Tomaro appeals  the trial  court's
decision granting  the summary  judgment of  the defendant-appellee
Heritage Mutual  Insurance  Co.   The  appellant sets  forth  three
assignments of error.
     On August 30, 1994, the appellant filed his original complaint
which sought to reduce an arbitration  award to judgment and prayed
for prejudgment interest.  On February 16, 1995, the appellee filed
a motion for  summary judgment solely  on the issue of  prejudgment
interest.  
     On March 15, 1995,  after the motion for summary  judgment was
filed, the  appellant amended  his complaint  to include causes  of
action for bad faith and breach of contract.  The amended complaint
sought  compensatory  damages,  punitive  damages  and  prejudgment
interest.  On March 29, 1995, the  appellee filed its answer to the
amended complaint; and  on April  10, 1995, the  appellant filed  a
response to the  appellee's motion for  summary judgment.  A  reply
brief was filed by the appellee on April 20, 1995. 
     The appellant's third assignment of error:  
          THE  TRIAL  COURT  ERRED  IN  ENTERING  A FINAL
          JUDGMENT  WHEN  THE   DEFENDANT'S  MOTION   FOR
                               - 3 -
          SUMMARY JUDGMENT  ONLY ADDRESSED  ONE OF  THREE
          CLAIMS RAISED IN THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT.  
     Civ.R. 56  specifically  contemplates  situations  wherein  an
entire case is  not disposed of by the motion for summary judgment.
However, in absence of an order determining there is no just reason
for delay where  there is more than one claim for relief, the trial
court's order does  not terminate  the action.   Civ.R. 54(B).   An
order  of  a  court  is  a  final,  appealable order  only  if  the
requirements of both Civ.R. 54(B),  if applicable, and R.C. 2505.02
are met.  Chef  Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ.  (1989), 44 Ohio
St.3d 86.
     In the case sub judice, the trial court had before it a motion
for summary  judgment on only one  issue.  The remaining  issues of
bad faith and breach of contract were not before the trial court, a
fact noted by the appellee in  its reply to the motion for  summary
judgment brief filed before the lower court on April 20, 1995. 
     Because there was no  final order entered by the  trial court,
this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal.  
     The appellant's third assignment of error is well taken.  
     The appellant's first and second assignments of error are moot
pursuant to App.R. 12.
     Appeal dismissed.
                               - 4 -
     It is ordered that appellee  recover of appellant  its   costs
herein taxed.  
     A certified copy  of this entry  shall constitute the  mandate
pursuant  to  Rule   27  of  the  Rules   of  Appellate  Procedure.
Exceptions.  
                             JAMES D. SWEENEY, P.J.
                              TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J.
                              DIANE KARPINSKI, J., CONCURS IN
                              JUDGMENT ONLY.  
N.B.   This entry is  made pursuant to  the third sentence  of Rule
22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.   This is an announcement
of decision (see Rule 26).  Ten (10) days from the date hereof this
document will  be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time
.