COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 80097 CARSON K. HALL, et al. : : Plaintiffs-appellees : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION STEPHEN L. STRZELECKI, et al. : : Defendants-appellants : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MAY 9, 2002 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Cuyahoga : County Common Pleas Court : Case No. 363,954 JUDGMENT : DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiffs-appellees: JONATHAN D. MESTER KATHLEEN J. ST. JOHN Attorneys at Law Nurenberg, Plevin, Heller & McCarthy 1370 Ontario Street, Suite 100 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1792 For defendant-appellant STANLEY S. KELLER Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co.: FRANKLIN C. MALEMUD Attorneys at Law Keller & Curtain Co., L.P.A. 330 Hanna Building 1422 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1901 (Cont'd) APPEARANCES (Continued): For defendant-appellant MICHAEL A. PAGLIA Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co. Attorney at Law (Continued): Ritzler, Coughlin & Swansinger Ltd. 1001 Lakeside Avenue 1550 North Point Tower Cleveland, Ohio 44114 -2- For defendant-appellee CHRISTIAN R. PATNO Kaiser Foundation: Attorney at Law Garson & Associates 1600 Rockefeller Bldg. 614 West Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellee NICHOLAS J. FILLO Stephen Strzelecki: Attorney at Law 1520 Standard Building 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1757 -3- KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.: {q1} Sua sponte, this appeal is dismissed for lack of a final appealable order, at appellant's cost. {q2} This court dismissed a prior appeal in this case for lack of a final, appealable order, concluding that the common pleas court's entry granting summary judgment on a claim for declaratory judgment did not declare the rights of the parties and so was not a final judgment. Hall v. Strzelecki (June 25, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78653, unreported. After that appeal was dismissed, the common pleas court entered the following order, which is the subject of the present appeal: {q3} Upon remand from the court of appeals (8th District), this court issues the following order: {q4} 's mtn for S.J. is granted. This court finds that the is afforded uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage under the Brotherhood Mutual Ins. Policy which had been issued to his employer, Cleveland Baptist Church. {q5} In accordance w/ Rule 54(B) this is a final judgment & there is no just reason for delay. Final. {q6} This entry also does not construe the terms of the insurance policy at issue and determine the parties' rights and obligations thereunder. R.C. 2721.04. Therefore, it is not final and appealable. Haberley v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 312. -4- {q7} This court has routinely noted that a trial court fails to fulfill its function when it disposes of the issues in a declaratory judgment action by journalizing an order sustaining or overruling a motion for summary judgment without setting forth any construction of the document under consideration. The issue has been raised frequently in cases in which a party demands a declaratory judgment concerning the construction of an insurance policy allegedly providing uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage. See, e.g., Haberley, 142 Ohio App.3d 312; Nickschinski v. Sentry Ins. Co. (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 185; Motorists Mut. Ins. Cos. v. Grischkan (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 148. Our decision in Haberley makes clear the trial court's construction of the insurance contract and declaration of rights is a jurisdictional concern, not merely an advisable practice. {q8} The court's conclusion that the appellee is afforded uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage under the Brotherhood Mutual Ins. policy which had been issued to his employer, Cleveland Baptist Church is insufficient to make its ruling a final declaratory judgment. We do not opine as to the level of specificity required,1 but the court must do more than state that a party is or is not entitled to insurance coverage. Appeal dismissed. 1The Ohio Supreme Court's description of the common pleas court's order granting summary judgment in Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, may be instructive. -5- This cause is dismissed. It is, therefore, considered that said appellee recover of said appellant its costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PRESIDING JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO JAMES D. SWEENEY, J. and COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J. CONCUR 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. 22. 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 clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1). .