COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 72571
ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, :         ACCELERATED
                              :
     Plaintiff-Appellant      :        JOURNAL ENTRY
                              :              AND
     vs.                      :            OPINION
                              :
SUDBURY, INC., ET AL.,        :          PER CURIAM
                              :
     Defendants-Appellees     :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    DECEMBER 11, 1997
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:      :    Civil appeal from
                              :    Common Pleas Court
                              :    Case No. 315922
JUDGMENT                      :    AFFIRMED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellant:      Edward R. Goldman
                              Ralph F. Mitchell
                              RENDIGS, FRY, KIELY & DENNIS
                              900 Fourth & Vine Tower
                              Five West Fourth Street
                              Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3688
For defendants-appellees:     Jonathan R. Cooper
                              Kevin H. Young
                              MARTINDALE, BRZYTWA & QUICK
                              900 Skylight Office Tower
                              1660 West Second Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1411
                                2
PER CURIAM:
     Appellant's sole assignment of error reads:
     THE  COURT ERRED  IN  GRANTING  DEFENDANT'S  MOTION  TO
     DISMISS.
     The general rule  to resolve conflict among two courts  with
concurrent jurisdiction over a matter is that the court whose power
is first invoked acquires exclusive jurisdiction.  State ex  rel.
Phillips v. Polcar (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 279, syllabus; Glidden v.
HM Holdings,  Inc. (1996), 109 Ohio  App.3d 721, 725.   Appellant
argues that this jurisdictional priority rule is inapplicable when
the courts  are in  different states;  however, as  we stated  in
Glidden:
     While that  rule  is not  precisely applicable  ...  it
     nonetheless  expresses  important  policy  designed  to
     preserve judicial resources and prevent duplicative  or
     piecemeal litigation.
Id. at 725.
We  agree  with our  statement  in  Glidden, and  find  that  the
jurisdictional priority rule is applicable.
     Appellant argues that even if the jurisdictional priority rule
is applicable, it should not be applied because the instant action
is not identical to the suit filed in Texas. It is not  necessary
for actions to  be identical to  invoke the state  jurisdictional
priority rule. State ex rel. Sellers v. Gerken (1995), 72 Ohio St.
3d 115, 117.
     The instant action is one to determine appellant's contractual
duties for  appellee's insurance policy.   The suit in Texas  was
brought, among other causes of action, for breach of contract  of
that policy. The resolution of this action is an issue inherent to
                                3
the action  in  Texas.   Accordingly,  the  state  jurisdictional
priority rule is applicable.
     Appellant finally argues that the court erred by applying the
doctrine of forum non conveniens in this case where the necessary
evidence  and  witnesses   are  located  in  Ohio.    A   court's
determination to resist exercise of its jurisdiction pursuant  to
the doctrine of forum non conveniens is reviewed for an abuse  of
discretion.  Glidden, 109 Ohio App.3d at 724.  In this case,  the
court did not abuse its discretion where the issue to be decided is
essentially a matter of contract construction.  See, Id. at 726.
     For  these reasons,  the  judgment  of the  trial  court  is
affirmed.
                                4
     It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs
herein taxed.
     The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
     It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court
directing  the Common  Pleas Court  to carry  this judgment  into
execution.
     A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the
                         PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE
                         JOSEPH J. NAHRA, JUDGE
                         JOHN T. PATTON, JUDGE
N.B.  This entry is an announcement of the court's decision.  See
App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27.  This decision will
be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court
pursuant to App.R.22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration  with
supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days
of the announcement of the court's decision.  The time period for
review by the Supreme Court of  Ohio shall begin to run upon  the
journalization of  this court's announcement  of decision by  the
.