bad faith claim in Ohio

2023Co., 65 Ohio St.3d 621 , 605 N.E.2d 936 (1992), the Supreme Court of Ohio set forth the proper summary-judgment analysis for a bad-faith claim: {¶119} “[T]o grant a motion for summary judgment brought by an insurer on the issue of whether it lacked good faith in the satisfaction of an insured’s claim, a court must find after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the insured, that the claim was 37 Case No. 2021-L-041 fairly debatable and the refusal was premised on either the status of the law at the time of the denial or the facts that gave rise to the claim. * * * To withstand a m

2023Co., 65 Ohio St.3d 621 , 605 N.E.2d 936 (1992), the Supreme Court of Ohio set forth the proper summary-judgment analysis for a bad-faith claim: {¶119} “[T]o grant a motion for summary judgment brought by an insurer on the issue of whether it lacked good faith in the satisfaction of an insured’s claim, a court must find after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the insured, that the claim was 37 Case No. 2021-L-041 fairly debatable and the refusal was premised on either the status of the law at the time of the denial or the facts that gave rise to the claim. * * * To withstand a m

2004Id. at 181 , 75 O.O.2d 224 , 347 N.E.2d 527 . {¶ 18} We conclude that the dicta in Sorin does not preclude us from determining that attorney fees sought under the bad-faith exception are costs rather than damages for the purpose of determining whether a complaint seeks recovery within a county court’s monetary jurisdiction.

2004Id. at 181 , 75 O.O.2d 224 , 347 N.E.2d 527 . {¶ 18} We conclude that the dicta in Sorin does not preclude us from determining that attorney fees sought under the bad-faith exception are costs rather than damages for the purpose of determining whether a complaint seeks recovery within a county court’s monetary jurisdiction.

2013A party seeking attorney fees based on the bad-faith exception to the American rule “must be the prevailing party in the litigation, and then must prove that his opponent acted in bad faith.” Strum v. Strum, 63 Ohio St.3d 671, 675 , 590 N.E.2d 1214 (1991).

2013A party seeking attorney fees based on the bad-faith exception to the American rule “must be the prevailing party in the litigation, and then must prove that his opponent acted in bad faith.” Strum v. Strum, 63 Ohio St.3d 671, 675 , 590 N.E.2d 1214 (1991).

2012Co. v. Said, 63 Ohio St.3d 690 , 590 N.E.2d 1228 (1992) (recognizing that a bad faith claim against an insurer arises separately from a claim based on the breach of the insurance contract, as the duty of good faith towards its insured is implied by law, even though the tort of bad faith arises as a consequence of a breach of a duty established by a particular contractual relationship), overruled in part on other grounds, Zoppo v. Homestead Ins.

2012Co. v. Said, 63 Ohio St.3d 690 , 590 N.E.2d 1228 (1992) (recognizing that a bad faith claim against an insurer arises separately from a claim based on the breach of the insurance contract, as the duty of good faith towards its insured is implied by law, even though the tort of bad faith arises as a consequence of a breach of a duty established by a particular contractual relationship), overruled in part on other grounds, Zoppo v. Homestead Ins.

2014Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶34} We find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on the bad faith claim.

2014Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶34} We find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on the bad faith claim.

2003In Bullet the trial court had granted summary judgment on the bad faith claim "because it is axiomatic that to succeed on the tort claim for a breach of the duty to act in good faith, the insured must succeed on the underlying contract claim." Id. at 333 .

2002Co. (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 327 ; HEC relies on it for the proposition that an insured need not establish coverage under a policy to maintain a bad faith claim against its insurer for failure to properly investigate whether a lawful basis exists to refuse coverage.

2020In Peyko v. Frederick, 25 Ohio St.3d 164 (1986), the case in which the Ohio Supreme Court held that an insured who makes a bad faith claim against an insurer may be entitled to access to certain portions of the claims -29- file, that court established a procedure by which the trial court in such a case is to examine the claims filed on an in camera basis to determine “which portions of the file, if any,” are protected by the attorney-client privilege and to permit the insured to review the balance of the file.

1999In its brief, Vanliner claimed that the documents are not discoverable based only upon the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, but, during oral argument, Vanliner also argued that the documents were irrelevant to the bad-faith claim. "`[T]he burden of showing that testimony [or documents] sought to be excluded under the doctrine of privileged attorney-client communications rests upon the party seeking to exclude [them].'" Peyko v. Frederick (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 164 , 166 , quoting Waldmann v. Waldmann (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 176 , 178 .

2012Indeed, the result reached in this case demonstrates why such a per se rule would negate the very reason we adopted the bad-faith requirement in the first place: to “limi[t] the extent of the police’s obligation to preserve evidence to reasonable grounds and confin[e] it to that class of cases where the interests of justice most clearly require it.” 488 U.S., at 58 , 109 S.Ct. 333 .

2012Indeed, the result reached in this case demonstrates why such a per se rule would negate the very reason we adopted the bad-faith requirement in the first place: to “limi[t] the extent of the police’s obligation to preserve evidence to reasonable grounds and confin[e] it to that class of cases where the interests of justice most clearly require it.” 488 U.S., at 58 , 109 S.Ct. 333 .

2011The bad faith claim was bifurcated from, and stayed pending resolution of, the other claims. 2 Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105, 1996-Ohio-336 , 671 N.E.2d 241 .

2009Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. , 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105 , 1996-Ohio-336 ; Zemcik v. LaPine Truck Sales Equip.

2011The bad faith claim was bifurcated from, and stayed pending resolution of, the other claims. 2 Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105, 1996-Ohio-336 , 671 N.E.2d 241 .

2009Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. , 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105 , 1996-Ohio-336 ; Zemcik v. LaPine Truck Sales Equip.

2003In the recent case of Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, 98 Ohio St.3d 77 , 2002-Ohio-7113 , 781 N.E.2d 121 , the claimant suffered enormous and demonstrable damages from the failure of the insurance company to pay for intra-arterial chemotherapy.

2002[Cite as Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Sheild, 98 Ohio St.3d 77 , 2002-Ohio-7113 .] DARDINGER, EXR., v. ANTHEM BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 98 Ohio St. 3d 77 , 2002-Ohio- 7113.] Insurance — Denial of payments for treatments for brain cancer — Breach of contract — Bad-faith claim — Punitive damages excessive under Ohio law, when — Remittitur ordered, when — Charitable fund created at James Cancer Hospital with portion of punitive damages award.

2002[Cite as Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Sheild, 98 Ohio St.3d 77 , 2002-Ohio-7113 .] DARDINGER, EXR., v. ANTHEM BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 98 Ohio St. 3d 77 , 2002-Ohio- 7113.] Insurance — Denial of payments for treatments for brain cancer — Breach of contract — Bad-faith claim — Punitive damages excessive under Ohio law, when — Remittitur ordered, when — Charitable fund created at James Cancer Hospital with portion of punitive damages award.

2002[Cite as Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Sheild, 98 Ohio St.3d 77 , 2002-Ohio-7113 .] DARDINGER, EXR., v. ANTHEM BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 98 Ohio St. 3d 77 , 2002-Ohio- 7113.] Insurance — Denial of payments for treatments for brain cancer — Breach of contract — Bad-faith claim — Punitive damages excessive under Ohio law, when — Remittitur ordered, when — Charitable fund created at James Cancer Hospital with portion of punitive damages award.

2002The restraint the jury showed on the compensatory damages and the lack of a “breathtaking” ratio between those damages and punitive damages cause us to hold that the second of the BMW indicia does not favor the decision that this jury’s award exceeded constitutional bounds. {¶ 173} The third indicium of excessiveness involves “[comparing the punitive damages award and the civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct.” 517 U.S. at 583 , 116 S.Ct. 1589 , 134 L.Ed.2d 809 .

2002The restraint the jury showed on the compensatory damages and the lack of a “breathtaking” ratio between those damages and punitive damages cause us to hold that the second of the BMW indicia does not favor the decision that this jury’s award exceeded constitutional bounds. {¶ 173} The third indicium of excessiveness involves “[comparing the punitive damages award and the civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct.” 517 U.S. at 583 , 116 S.Ct. 1589 , 134 L.Ed.2d 809 .

2001Moreover, this “distinction” could easily be eliminated by staying the bad faith claim until the underlying claim has been determined. {¶ 14} Vanliner argues that Moskovitz must be viewed in light of our subsequent holding in State v. McDermott (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 570 , 651 N.E.2d 985 , so that even if our ruling in Moskovitz is applicable to attorney-client communications in the present case, McDermott requires that they be protected.

2001Moreover, this “distinction” could easily be eliminated by staying the bad faith claim until the underlying claim has been determined. {¶ 14} Vanliner argues that Moskovitz must be viewed in light of our subsequent holding in State v. McDermott (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 570 , 651 N.E.2d 985 , so that even if our ruling in Moskovitz is applicable to attorney-client communications in the present case, McDermott requires that they be protected.

2025Co., 2 P.3d 510 (Wyo. 2000).

2023Because it did not, this court is asked to issue what is essentially an advisory opinion about what choice-of-law rules govern a discovery dispute that should not yet have arisen in the first place, notwithstanding “our long-standing practice [that] disfavors issuing advisory opinions,” Capital Care Network of Toledo v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 153 Ohio St.3d 362 , 2018-Ohio-440 , 106 N.E.3d 1209, ¶ 31 . {¶ 34} The question presented by the parties concerns what choice-of-law rules apply to Scott Fetzer’s efforts to compel production of documents from Travelers that may be relevant to the insurer

2023Because it did not, this court is asked to issue what is essentially an advisory opinion about what choice-of-law rules govern a discovery dispute that should not yet have arisen in the first place, notwithstanding “our long-standing practice [that] disfavors issuing advisory opinions,” Capital Care Network of Toledo v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 153 Ohio St.3d 362 , 2018-Ohio-440 , 106 N.E.3d 1209, ¶ 31 . {¶ 34} The question presented by the parties concerns what choice-of-law rules apply to Scott Fetzer’s efforts to compel production of documents from Travelers that may be relevant to the insurer

2023“Generally speaking, it would be unfair and improper to hold a person liable under the local law of one state when he had justifiably molded his conduct to conform to the requirements of another state.” Id.

2023No. C-180462, 2019-Ohio-3300 , in support of the contention that the trial court erred by refusing to stay discovery on the bad faith claim pending the jury determination of the breach of contract claim.

2022Plant v. Illinois Employers Ins. of Wausau, 20 Ohio App.3d 236, 238 , 485 N.E.2d 773 (9th Dist.1984); Stevenson v. First Am.

2022Plant v. Illinois Employers Ins. of Wausau, 20 Ohio App.3d 236, 238 , 485 N.E.2d 773 (9th Dist.1984); Stevenson v. First Am.

2021Second, it found, “There is no constitutionally imposed duty to obtain evidence by employing any specific technological means.” Id. {¶19} We note that some Ohio appellate districts seem to have incorporated a bad-faith exception into the general rule that officers have no duty to record field- sobriety tests.