apparent authority analysis in Ohio

2026“Under an apparent- authority analysis, an agent’s authority is determined by the acts of the principal rather than by the acts of the agent.” Id.

2020The principal is responsible for the agent’s acts only when the principal has clothed the agent with apparent authority and not when the agent’s own conduct has created the apparent authority.” Id., quoting Master Consol. at 576-577.

2025The principal is responsible for the agent’s acts only when the principal has clothed the agent with apparent authority and not when the agent’s own conduct has created the apparent authority.’” Id., quoting Schalmo Builders at ¶ 18, quoting Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Martin, 2008-Ohio-1809 , ¶ 41.

2018Upon reconsideration, the appellate court held that the law-of-the-case was established in Kolosai I : the arbitration agreement could not be enforced under a doctrine of apparent authority. 2016-Ohio-5831 , 2016 WL 4978362 , ¶ 36 (" Kolosai II ").

2018Apparent Authority {¶ 25} Next, Appellant argues that even if there was a valid contract, Lobdell did not have the authority to sign it because he was not held out by Appellant as having such (apparent) authority. {¶ 26} It is well established that "under an apparent-authority analysis, the acts of the principal, rather than the agent, must be examined." Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 , 2006-Ohio-1189 , 843 N.E.2d 1170 , ¶ 56 citing Master Consol.

2018Apparent Authority {¶ 25} Next, Appellant argues that even if there was a valid contract, Lobdell did not have the authority to sign it because he was not held out by Appellant as having such (apparent) authority. {¶ 26} It is well established that "under an apparent-authority analysis, the acts of the principal, rather than the agent, must be examined." Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 , 2006-Ohio-1189 , 843 N.E.2d 1170 , ¶ 56 citing Master Consol.

2016Id.

2016Cuyahoga No. 100109, 2014-Ohio-1238, ¶ 6 , appeal not accepted, 140 Ohio Delaware County, Case No. 15 CAE 12 0095 9 St.3d 1415, 2014-Ohio-3785 , 15 N.E.3d 884 ; See also Primmer v. Healthcare Industries Corp., 2015-Ohio-4104 , 43 N.E.3d 788 , ¶ 25 (4th Dist.). {¶20} The second prong of the apparent authority analysis requires Extendicare to prove that it, acting in good faith, had reason to believe that Mrs. Simmons possessed the authority to bind Mr. Simmons to the terms of the ADR.

2016Cuyahoga No. 100890, 2014-Ohio-4474 (“Kolosai I.”) Kolosai argued that the trial court erred in granting the stay, holding that Rose signed the Arbitration Agreement that would render it unenforceable, yet determining the Arbitration Agreement was, in fact, enforceable under the doctrine of apparent authority, an argument that was not offered by either party.

2006Furthermore, under agency law, an employer can be held liable for sexual harassment committed by an employee "when the employee uses apparent authority (the apparent authority standard), or when the employee `was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation' (the aided in the agency relation standard)." Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998), 524 U.S. 742 , 759 , 141 L.Ed.2d 633 . {¶ 12} In support of her opposition to Appellee's motion for summary judgment, Appellant referenced her deposition testimony.

2006Furthermore, under agency law, an employer can be held liable for sexual harassment committed by an employee "when the employee uses apparent authority (the apparent authority standard), or when the employee `was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation' (the aided in the agency relation standard)." Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998), 524 U.S. 742 , 759 , 141 L.Ed.2d 633 . {¶ 12} In support of her opposition to Appellee's motion for summary judgment, Appellant referenced her deposition testimony.

2006In Kerans v. Porter Paint Co. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 486, 491 , 575 N.E.2d 428 , we held that an employee who sexually harasses another employee over whom he has supervisory duties may be found to have been acting with apparent authority and, therefore, may be found to have been acting within the scope of employment. {¶ 56} Under an apparent-authority analysis, the acts of the principal, rather than the agent, must be examined.

2006In Kerans v. Porter Paint Co. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 486, 491 , 575 N.E.2d 428 , we held that an employee who sexually harasses another employee over whom he has supervisory duties may be found to have been acting with apparent authority and, therefore, may be found to have been acting within the scope of employment. {¶ 56} Under an apparent-authority analysis, the acts of the principal, rather than the agent, must be examined.

1996Abroms v. Mosley (Dec. 18, 1990), Franklin App. No. 90AP-238, unreported, 1990 WL 212572 , citing Ammerman v. Avis Rent A Car Sys. (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 338, 340-341 , 7 OBR 436, 437-440, 455 N.E.2d 1041, 1044-1046 .

1996Abroms v. Mosley (Dec. 18, 1990), Franklin App. No. 90AP-238, unreported, 1990 WL 212572 , citing Ammerman v. Avis Rent A Car Sys. (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 338, 340-341 , 7 OBR 436, 437-440, 455 N.E.2d 1041, 1044-1046 .