COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 81115
DAWN STRAUBHAAR,              :         ACCELERATED
                              :
     Plaintiff-Appellant      :
                              :        JOURNAL ENTRY
     vs.                      :              AND
                              :            OPINION
CIGNA PROPERTY & CASUALTY     :
COMPANY,                      :
                              :
     Defendant-Appellee       :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    SEPTEMBER 12, 2002
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:      :    Civil appeal from
                              :    Common Pleas Court
                              :    Case No. 419944
JUDGMENT                      :    AFFIRMED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellant:      Stephen S. Vanek, Esq.
                              FRIEDMAN, DOMIANO & SMITH CO., LPA
                              1370 Ontario Street
                              600 Standard Building
                              Cleveland, Ohio  44113-1701
For defendant-appellee:       Steven J. Forbes, Esq.
                              MOSCARINO & TREU, LLP
                              The Hanna Building
                              1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 630
                              Cleveland, Ohio  44115
                               -2-
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, P.J.:
     This case  came to be  heard upon  the accelerated  calendar
pursuant to  App.R. 11.1  and Loc.R.  11.1, the  record from  the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, the briefs and oral argument
of counsel.  Plaintiff Dawn Straubhaar, a passenger in a vehicle,
suffered injuries when that vehicle crashed.  She settled her claim
with the  driver  of the  vehicle  and brought  this  declaratory
judgment action under authority of Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty  Mut.
Fire Ins. Co., 85 Ohio St.3d 660; 1999-Ohio-292, against defendant
Cigna Property & Casualty Company, the insurer of USX Corporation,
the parent company of  her employer, Speedway/SuperAmerica.   The
court granted  summary judgment to  Cigna.  Straubhaar's  primary
argument  on  appeal   is  that  the   court  erred  by   finding
Speedway/SuperAmerica  to be  de  facto  self-insured  since  the
uninsured/underinsured       motorists    policy    issued     to
Speedway/SuperAmerica  had   a   $5   million   deductible   that
intentionally matched  the  $5 million  liability limits  of  the
policy.
     Although there  is arguably  merit to  the proposition  that
Straubhaar's settlement against the tortfeasor destroyed  Cigna's
right to subrogation, we need not reach this issue as we find that
the evidence showed that USX was de facto self-insured and thus not
obligated to provide uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage.  By
taking out a policy with a deductible equal to the liability limit,
Speedway/SuperAmerica  became a  self-insurer in  the   practical
sense. See Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Refiners Transport & Terminal
                               -3-
Corp. (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 47, 49; Lafferty v. Reliance Ins. Co.
(N.D.Ohio 2000), 109 F.Supp.2d 837.  This obviated the necessity of
obtaining a certificate of self-insurance under R.C. 4509.45  and
R.C. 4509.72.  The assigned error is overruled.
     Judgment affirmed.
                               -4-
     It is ordered  that appellee recover of appellant its  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  mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
                                        MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN
                                          PRESIDING JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCURS.
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., CONCURS IN
JUDGMENT ONLY.
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
clerk  per App.R.  22(E).   See, also,  S.Ct.Prac.R. II,  Section
2(A)(1).
 
.