Aetna Life Insurance v. Schilling

In my view, the majority opinion has seriously erred in according vested contractual rights to a person whose contractual interest was nothing more than an expectancy, solely dependent on the action or inaction of another. Therefore, I must respectfully yet vigorously dissent from what I perceive to be a misapplication of Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, as well as a manifest injustice to the appellee-widow and surviving son.

*169Even if it is assumed that decedent was a party to the insurance contract, the majority’s application of Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution…