allegations claim in Ohio

2014Co. v. Anders, 99 Ohio St.3d 156 , 2003-Ohio-3048 , ¶ 18, quoting Willoughby Hills at 179 . “[T]he pleadings alone may not provide sufficient factual information to determine whether the insurer has an obligation to defend the insured.” Willoughby Hills at 180 . “[W]here the insurer’s duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the case against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage, or there is some doubt as to whether a theory of recovery within the policy coverage had been pleaded, the insurer must accept the de

2008An insurer has a duty to defend the insured ‘[w]here the allegations state a claim that falls either potentially or arguably within the liability insurance coverage.’ Anders, 99 Ohio St.3d 156 , 2003-Ohio-3048 , 789 N.E.2d 1094, at ¶ 18 .

1993Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 177, 180 , 9 OBR 463, 465, 459 N.E.2d 555, 558 , that: “[W]here the insurer’s duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the case against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage, or there is some doubt as to whether a theory of recovery within the policy coverage has been pleaded, the insurer must accept the defense of the claim.” In the more recent case of Wedge Prod., Inc. v. Hartford Equity Sales Co. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 65, 68 , 31 OBR 180, 182, 509 N.E.2d 74, 76 , the Ohio Supreme Cou

1993Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 177, 180 , 9 OBR 463, 465, 459 N.E.2d 555, 558 , that: “[W]here the insurer’s duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the case against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage, or there is some doubt as to whether a theory of recovery within the policy coverage has been pleaded, the insurer must accept the defense of the claim.” In the more recent case of Wedge Prod., Inc. v. Hartford Equity Sales Co. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 65, 68 , 31 OBR 180, 182, 509 N.E.2d 74, 76 , the Ohio Supreme Cou

2023“The insurer must defend the insured in an action when the allegations state a claim that potentially or arguably falls within the liability insurance coverage.” No duty to defend exists “[w]hen all the claims are clearly and indisputably outside the contracted coverage.” Id.

2015“If the allegations state a claim that potentially or arguably falls within the liability insurance coverage, then the insurer must defend the insured in the action.” Id.

2016Co. v. Trainor, 33 Ohio St.2d 41 (1973), paragraph two of the syllabus. “[W]here the complaint brings the action within the coverage of the policy, the insurer is required to make the defense, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the action or its liability to the insured.” Id. “[W]here the insurer’s duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the case against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage * * * the insurer must accept defense of the claim.” Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins.

2016Co. v. Trainor, 33 Ohio St.2d 41 (1973), paragraph two of the syllabus. “[W]here the complaint brings the action within the coverage of the policy, the insurer is required to make the defense, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the action or its liability to the insured.” Id. “[W]here the insurer’s duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the case against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage * * * the insurer must accept defense of the claim.” Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins.

2005Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35 . {¶ 10} In Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 177 , 180 , the Supreme Court of Ohio held the following: {¶ 11} "[W]here the insurer's duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the case against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage, or there is some doubt as to whether a theory of recovery within the policy coverage had been pleaded, the insurer must accept the defense of the claim." {¶ 12} In Sanderson v. Ohio Edison Co.,

2001“Where the insurer’s duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the action against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage, or there is some doubt as to whether a *73 theory of recovery within the policy coverage has been pleaded, the insurer must accept the defense of the claim.” Sanderson v. Ohio Edison Co. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 582, 585-586 , 685 N.E.2d 19 , 23, citing Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins.

2007Co. v. Gill (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 108 , 30 OBR 424, 507 N.E.2d 1118 , West American contends that where an insurer does not agree to defend groundless, false, or fraudulent claims, the insurer’s duty to defend does not depend solely on the allegations in the complaint.

2003Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 177 , 179 , that "the duty to defend need not arise solely from the allegations in the complaint but may arise at a point subsequent to the filing of the complaint." Therefore, "where the insurer's duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the case against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage, or there is some doubt as to whether a theory of recovery within the policy coverage had been pleaded, the insurer must accept the defense of the claim." Id. at 180 . {¶ 19} However, in Gill , sup

2024(Nos. 2022-0837 and 2022-1042—Submitted May 16, 2023—Decided August 8, 2024.) APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA2021-09-084, 2022-Ohio-1708 . __________________ DONNELLY, J., authored the opinion of the court, which STEWART, BRUNNER, and MAYLE, JJ., joined.

2024(Nos. 2022-0837 and 2022-1042—Submitted May 16, 2023—Decided August 8, 2024.) APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA2021-09-084, 2022-Ohio-1708 . __________________ DONNELLY, J., authored the opinion of the court, which STEWART, BRUNNER, and MAYLE, JJ., joined.

2008Conversely, ‘[t]he insurer need not provide a defense if there is no set of facts alleged in the complaint which, if proven true, would invoke coverage.’ Martin, 85 Ohio St.3d at 605 , 710 N.E.2d 677 .

2005Conversely, “[t]he insurer need not provide a defense if there is no set of facts alleged in the complaint which, if *595 proven true, would invoke coverage.” Martin, 85 Ohio St.3d at 605 , 710 N.E.2d 677 .

2004"Notice provisions in insurance contracts * * * provide the insurer the ability to determine whether the allegations state a claim that is covered by the policy." Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 88 Ohio St.3d 292 , 302-303 , 2000-Ohio-330 .

2003Notice provisions allow the insurer to become aware of occurrences early enough that it can have a meaningful opportunity to investigate. [Citations omitted.] In addition, it provides the insurer the ability to determine whether the allegations state a claim that is covered by the policy. [Citations omitted.] It allows the insurer to step in and control the potential litigation, protect its own interests, maintain the proper reserves in its accounts, and pursue possible subrogation claims. [Citations omitted.] Further, it allows insurers to make timely investigations of occurrences in order to

2024[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 178 Ohio St.3d 3 .] WEIDMAN, APPELLEE, v. HILDEBRANT, APPELLANT. [Cite as Weidman v. Hildebrant, 2024-Ohio-2931 .] Statute of limitations—R.C. 2305.11—Libel—Discovery rule—Discovery rule applies to claims of libel based on reputational injuries when the publication of the libelous statements was secretive, concealed, or otherwise inherently unknowable to plaintiff due to nature of the publication—Discovery rule applies to derivative claims that are premised on the same allegations as the claim of libel—Court of appeals’ judgment affi

2024Id.

2023In other words, “the insurer need not provide a defense if there is no set of facts alleged in the complaint that, if proved true, would invoke coverage for any claim.” Granger v. Auto-Owners Ins., 144 Ohio St.3d 57 , 2015-Ohio- 3279, 40 N.E.3d 1110 , ¶ 21.

2023In other words, “the insurer need not provide a defense if there is no set of facts alleged in the complaint that, if proved true, would invoke coverage for any claim.” Granger v. Auto-Owners Ins., 144 Ohio St.3d 57 , 2015-Ohio- 3279, 40 N.E.3d 1110 , ¶ 21.

2020“The insurer must defend the insured in an action when the allegations state a claim that potentially or arguably falls within the liability insurance coverage.” Id., citing Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins.

2020“The insurer must defend the insured in an action when the allegations state a claim that potentially or arguably falls within the liability insurance coverage.” Id., citing Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins.

2013No. 12AP-681 17 Targot Telemarketing Servs., 70 Ohio App.3d 689 (10th Dist.1990). "[L]iability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Yeager at 375 . {¶ 54} We agree with appellees that appellant's complaint raises a number of ecclesiastic issues in support of the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.7 However, even if we disregard such allegations in the analysis, we still believe tha

2007Co., 112 Ohio St.3d 482 . 2006-Ohio-6551 , 861 N.E.2d 121 . at ¶ 35. *134 {¶ 19} In Willoughby Hills , the Ohio Supreme Court also stressed: {¶ 20} “[W]here the insurer’s duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the case against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage, or there is some doubt as to whether a theory of recovery within the policy coverage had been pleaded, the insurer must accept the defense of the claim.” 9 Ohio St.3d at 180 , 9 OBR 463, 459 N.E.2d 555 . {¶ 21} Relying on Preferred Risk Ins.

2007Co., 112 Ohio St.3d 482 . 2006-Ohio-6551 , 861 N.E.2d 121 . at ¶ 35. *134 {¶ 19} In Willoughby Hills , the Ohio Supreme Court also stressed: {¶ 20} “[W]here the insurer’s duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the case against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage, or there is some doubt as to whether a theory of recovery within the policy coverage had been pleaded, the insurer must accept the defense of the claim.” 9 Ohio St.3d at 180 , 9 OBR 463, 459 N.E.2d 555 . {¶ 21} Relying on Preferred Risk Ins.

2005Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35 . {¶ 10} In Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 177 , 180 , the Supreme Court of Ohio held the following: {¶ 11} "[W]here the insurer's duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the case against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage, or there is some doubt as to whether a theory of recovery within the policy coverage had been pleaded, the insurer must accept the defense of the claim." {¶ 12} In Sanderson v. Ohio Edison Co.,

2005Under the pleadings test, the duty to defend exists when the allegations state a claim that is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage; under National Union's construction in Brown , the duty to advance costs exists when "the claim suggests a `reasonable potential for coverage.'" Id.

2005Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35 . {¶ 10} In Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 177 , 180 , the Supreme Court of Ohio held the following: {¶ 11} "[W]here the insurer's duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the case against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage, or there is some doubt as to whether a theory of recovery within the policy coverage had been pleaded, the insurer must accept the defense of the claim." {¶ 12} In Sanderson v. Ohio Edison Co.,

2003Hanson v. Guernsey County Board of Commissioners (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 545 , 605 N.E.2d 378 .

1994See Evid.R. 103(A)(1); State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112 , 5 O.O.3d 98 , 364 N.E.2d 1364 .

1994See Evid.R. 103(A)(1); State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112 , 5 O.O.3d 98 , 364 N.E.2d 1364 .

1985Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St. 3d 177 , where the syllabus provides as follows: “Where the insurer’s duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the action against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage, or there is some doubt as to whether a theory of recovery within the policy coverage has been pleaded, the insurer must accept the defense of the claim.” In the present case, the city, which was acting as a self-insurer for police professional liability insurance, mildly suggests that it is not an insurer in the same sense

1985Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St. 3d 177 , where the syllabus provides as follows: “Where the insurer’s duty to defend is not apparent from the pleadings in the action against the insured, but the allegations do state a claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage, or there is some doubt as to whether a theory of recovery within the policy coverage has been pleaded, the insurer must accept the defense of the claim.” In the present case, the city, which was acting as a self-insurer for police professional liability insurance, mildly suggests that it is not an insurer in the same sense