Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Riedel v. Housergreen2 sentences2011See e.g., Riedel v. Houser (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 546, 549 , 607 N.E.2d 894 (an attempted distinction between the discovery rule and the delayed-damages rule was rejected as a distinction without a difference); Schnippel Constr. v. Profitt, 3d Dist. 2011See e.g., Riedel v. Houser (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 546, 549 , 607 N.E.2d 894 (an attempted distinction between the discovery rule and the delayed-damages rule was rejected as a distinction without a difference); Schnippel Constr. v. Profitt, 3d Dist. | 2 | 3 |
Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc.green2 sentences2022"Under the delayed-damages rule, 'where the wrongful conduct complained of is not presently harmful, the cause of action does not accrue until actual damage occurs.' " Flagstar Bank at ¶ 19, quoting Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 376, 379 (1982). {¶ 31} In Kunz, the Supreme Court of Ohio applied the delayed damages rule to a cause of action alleging negligent procurement of an insurance policy. 2012The Flagstar court also rejected application of the so-called “delayed-damages rule,” which provides that “‘where the wrongful conduct complained of is not presently harmful, the cause of action does not accrue until actual damage occurs.’” Id. at ¶19, quoting Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 376, 379 . {¶ 16} The Flagstar court briefly observed that it had applied the delayed-damages rule in Kunz. | 1 | 6 |
Investors REIT One v. Jacobsgreen2 sentences2016(R.C. 2305.09(D) and Investors REIT One v. Jacobs (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 176 , 546 N.E.2d 206 , followed.) Kunz's Viability After Flagstar {¶ 26} The question before us is whether Kunz has any continued viability in light of the decision in Flagstar Bank. {¶ 27} On the one hand, in Flagstar Bank, the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected cases from various courts of appeals applying the delayed damages rule to claims of professional negligence in various professions. 2016(R.C. 2305.09(D) and Investors REIT One v. Jacobs (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 176 , 546 N.E.2d 206 , followed.) Kunz's Viability After Flagstar {¶ 26} The question before us is whether Kunz has any continued viability in light of the decision in Flagstar Bank. {¶ 27} On the one hand, in Flagstar Bank, the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected cases from various courts of appeals applying the delayed damages rule to claims of professional negligence in various professions. | 1 | 5 |
Chateau Estate Homes, L.L.C. v. Fifth Third Bankgreen2 sentences2022No. C-160703, 2017-Ohio-6985, ¶ 22 (refusing to follow Vinecourt Landscaping and instead following Auckerman to find Kunz implicitly overruled). {¶ 34} In LGR Realty, the Supreme Court held that the delayed damages rule did not apply to a cause of action alleging negligent procurement of an insurance policy. 2018"Unlike the discovery rule, the delayed-damages rule does not just toll the running of the statute of limitations, it adjusts when the cause of action accrues." Chateau Estate Homes, L.L.C. v. Fifth Third Bank , 1st Dist., 2017-Ohio-6985 , 95 N.E.3d 693 , ¶ 14. | 1 | 2 |
O'Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp.green2 sentences2009See, e.g., O’Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp. (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 84, 87 , 447 N.E.2d 727 (actual injury rule); Shaker Courts Condo. 2009See, e.g., O’Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp. (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 84, 87 , 447 N.E.2d 727 (actual injury rule); Shaker Courts Condo. | 1 | 1 |
Sedar v. Knowlton Construction Co.red1 sentence2007See Philpott v. Ernst Whinney (Nov. 25, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 61203 (Corrigan, J., dissenting) (opining that "[w]hile the `discovery rule' is not applicable to claims of professional negligence brought against accountants, see Investors REIT One v. Jacobs (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 176 , paragraph two of the syllabus, this rule is not a `discovery rule,' as it deals with the delayed occurrence of damages, not the discovery of injury." See, also, Sedar v. Knowlton Constr Co. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 193 , 198 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Grant Thornton v. Windsor House, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016No. CA2001-11-086, 2002-Ohio-2602 (surveyor). {¶ 24} The court stated that it had implicitly rejected the delayed damages rule in Thornton v. Windsor House, Inc., 57 Ohio St.3d 158 (1991), a case involving alleged negligence in performing Medicaid audits. 2011We implicitly rejected the delayed-damages rule in Grant Thornton . {¶ 26} In Grant Thornton , after repayment to the state of Ohio of $2.5 million was ordered against a nursing home, the nursing home counterclaimed against auditors for professional negligence. 57 Ohio St.3d at 159 , 566 N.E.2d 1220 . | 4 | 2011–2018 |
Hater v. Gradison Division of McDonald & Co.
green
2 sentences2017We stated that the distinction between the discovery rule and the delayed-damages rule is "a distinction without a difference." Id. at 110, 655 N.E.2d 189 . 2016No. 2007CA00223, 2008-Ohio-893 (title agency). {¶ 23} It then contrasted those cases with a case from the First District Court of Appeals, Hater v. Gradison Div. of McDonald & Co. Sec., 101 Ohio App.3d 99 (1st Dist.1995) (involving investment dealers, accountants, an appraiser, and a builder), in which the court declined to apply the delayed damages rule. | 4 | 2009–2017 |
Jp Morgan Chase Bank v. Lanning, 2007ca00223 (3-3-2008)
neutral
2 sentences2016No. 2007CA00223, 2008-Ohio-893 (title agency). {¶ 23} It then contrasted those cases with a case from the First District Court of Appeals, Hater v. Gradison Div. of McDonald & Co. Sec., 101 Ohio App.3d 99 (1st Dist.1995) (involving investment dealers, accountants, an appraiser, and a builder), in which the court declined to apply the delayed damages rule. 2011No. 2007CA00223, 2008-Ohio-893 , 2008 WL 588804 (a cause of action against a title agency for altering and recording a mortgage did not accrue until the bank filed a foreclosure action against the property owners, because the owners had not suffered an actual injury until then). {¶ 23} In contrast, the First District Court of Appeals has declined to apply the delayed-damages rule to claims for professional negligence. | 3 | 2009–2016 |
Gray v. Estate of Barry
green
2 sentences2016Gray v. Estate of Barry, 101 Ohio App.3d 764 (6th Dist.1995)(certified public accountant); Fritz v. Cox, 142 Ohio App.3d 664 (5th Dist.2001)(tax preparation); JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v. Lanning, 5th Dist. 2011Gray v. Estate of Barry (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 764 , 656 N.E.2d 729 . | 3 | 2009–2016 |
Fronczak v. Arthur Andersen, L.L.P.
green
2 sentences2011No. 17-09-12, 2009-Ohio-5905 , 2009 WL 3720585 (the delayed-damages rule was inapplicable to a claim for negligent misrepresentation involving adoption and execution of an employee benefit plan); Fronczak v. Arthur Andersen, L.L.P. (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 240, 244 , 705 N.E.2d 1283 (the delayed-damages theory was found to be implicitly rejected by the “broad language in Investors REIT One ”); Bell v. Holden Survey, Inc. (Sept. 29, 2000), 7th Dist. 2011No. 17-09-12, 2009-Ohio-5905 , 2009 WL 3720585 (the delayed-damages rule was inapplicable to a claim for negligent misrepresentation involving adoption and execution of an employee benefit plan); Fronczak v. Arthur Andersen, L.L.P. (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 240, 244 , 705 N.E.2d 1283 (the delayed-damages theory was found to be implicitly rejected by the “broad language in Investors REIT One ”); Bell v. Holden Survey, Inc. (Sept. 29, 2000), 7th Dist. | 2 | 2009–2011 |
Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union's Mortgage Co.
green
2 sentences2018Co. , 128 Ohio St.3d 529 , 2011-Ohio-1961 , 947 N.E.2d 672 , ¶ 19, quoting Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc. , 69 Ohio St.2d 376 , 379, 433 N.E.2d 147 (1982). 2018Co. , 128 Ohio St.3d 529 , 2011-Ohio-1961 , 947 N.E.2d 672 , ¶ 19, quoting Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc. , 69 Ohio St.2d 376 , 379, 433 N.E.2d 147 (1982). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kunz v. Buckeye Union Ins.
green
2 sentences2017Co. and the Delayed-Damages Rule {¶ 15} Chateau relies on the delayed-damages rule, citing Kunz, 1 Ohio St.3d 79 , 437 N.E.2d 1194 . 2017Co. and the Delayed-Damages Rule {¶ 15} Chateau relies on the delayed-damages rule, citing Kunz, 1 Ohio St.3d 79 , 437 N.E.2d 1194 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
LGR Realty, Inc. v. Frank & London Ins. Agency
green
1 sentence2017Agency , 2016-Ohio-5044 , 58 N.E.3d 1179 , ¶ 14 (10th Dist.), appeal allowed , 148 Ohio St.3d 1425 , 2017-Ohio-905 , 71 N.E.3d 297 . {¶ 14} A related concept is the delayed-damages rule. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Harris v. Fed. Bur. of Investigation
green
1 sentence2017Agency , 2016-Ohio-5044 , 58 N.E.3d 1179 , ¶ 14 (10th Dist.), appeal allowed , 148 Ohio St.3d 1425 , 2017-Ohio-905 , 71 N.E.3d 297 . {¶ 14} A related concept is the delayed-damages rule. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Dickerson
neutral
1 sentence2017Agency , 2016-Ohio-5044 , 58 N.E.3d 1179 , ¶ 14 (10th Dist.), appeal allowed , 148 Ohio St.3d 1425 , 2017-Ohio-905 , 71 N.E.3d 297 . {¶ 14} A related concept is the delayed-damages rule. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Cummings v. Harvey Abens Iosue Co., L.P.A.
neutral
1 sentence2017Agency , 2016-Ohio-5044 , 58 N.E.3d 1179 , ¶ 14 (10th Dist.), appeal allowed , 148 Ohio St.3d 1425 , 2017-Ohio-905 , 71 N.E.3d 297 . {¶ 14} A related concept is the delayed-damages rule. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Vinecourt Landscaping v. Kleve
green
1 sentence2017Geauga No. 2013-G-3142, 2013-Ohio-5825 , 2013 WL 6875468 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Melnyk v. Cleveland Clinic
green
1 sentence2016Melnyk v. Cleveland Clinic, 32 Ohio St.2d 198 (1972), syllabus ("Where a metallic forceps and a nonabsorbent sponge are negligently left inside a patient's body during surgery, the running of the statute of limitation governing a claim therefor is tolled until the patient discovers, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the negligent act.") {¶ 15} The delayed damages rule alters the general rule as to when a cause of action in tort accrues, because the Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that cause of action does not accrue until actual injury or damage ensues. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Harris v. Liston
green
1 sentence2016"However, in situations where the wrongful act does not immediately result in injury or damage, strict application of the general rule can lead to an unjust result." Id. at 205-06 . {¶ 14} The discovery rule and the delayed damages rule are exceptions to the general rule designed to avoid this type of unjust result. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Fritz v. Bruner Cox, L.L.P.
green
1 sentence2016Gray v. Estate of Barry, 101 Ohio App.3d 764 (6th Dist.1995)(certified public accountant); Fritz v. Cox, 142 Ohio App.3d 664 (5th Dist.2001)(tax preparation); JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v. Lanning, 5th Dist. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Auckerman v. Rogers
neutral
2 sentences2013Greene No. 2011-CA-23, 2012-Ohio-23 (discretionary appeal not allowed by 2012- Ohio-3054, the court reviewed the relevant case law and concluded the Supreme Court, in Flagstar, “implicitly overruled Kunz with regard to application of the delayed-damages rule in cases of professional negligence governed by R.C. 2305.09.” Auckerman, supra, at ¶17 . 2013Greene No. 2011-CA-23, 2012-Ohio-23 (discretionary appeal not allowed by 2012- Ohio-3054, the court reviewed the relevant case law and concluded the Supreme Court, in Flagstar, “implicitly overruled Kunz with regard to application of the delayed-damages rule in cases of professional negligence governed by R.C. 2305.09.” Auckerman, supra, at ¶17 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Mussivand v. David
green
2 sentences2011“To establish actionable negligence, one must show in addition to the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty and injury resulting proximately therefrom.” Mussivand v. David (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318 , 544 N.E.2d 265 . 2011“To establish actionable negligence, one must show in addition to the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty and injury resulting proximately therefrom.” Mussivand v. David (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318 , 544 N.E.2d 265 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Schnippel Constr., Inc. v. Profitt
green
2 sentences2011No. 17-09-12, 2009-Ohio-5905 , 2009 WL 3720585 (the delayed-damages rule was inapplicable to a claim for negligent misrepresentation involving adoption and execution of an employee benefit plan); Fronczak v. Arthur Andersen, L.L.P. (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 240, 244 , 705 N.E.2d 1283 (the delayed-damages theory was found to be implicitly rejected by the “broad language in Investors REIT One ”); Bell v. Holden Survey, Inc. (Sept. 29, 2000), 7th Dist. 2011No. 17-09-12, 2009-Ohio-5905 , 2009 WL 3720585 (the delayed-damages rule was inapplicable to a claim for negligent misrepresentation involving adoption and execution of an employee benefit plan); Fronczak v. Arthur Andersen, L.L.P. (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 240, 244 , 705 N.E.2d 1283 (the delayed-damages theory was found to be implicitly rejected by the “broad language in Investors REIT One ”); Bell v. Holden Survey, Inc. (Sept. 29, 2000), 7th Dist. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Sladky v. Lomax
green
2 sentences2009Additionally, the holding in Sladky v. Lomax (9th Dist., 1988), 43 Ohio App.3d 4 , 538 N.E.2d 1089 , upon which the dissent in Philpott and the Courts in Gray and Fritz relied, has been questioned following Investors REIT One. 2009Additionally, the holding in Sladky v. Lomax (9th Dist., 1988), 43 Ohio App.3d 4 , 538 N.E.2d 1089 , upon which the dissent in Philpott and the Courts in Gray and Fritz relied, has been questioned following Investors REIT One. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.