Recent News
Check here for the latest court decisions and legislation affecting insurance law........
 |
| CLICK HERE to View |
The final settlement demands made by the plaintiffs at mediation were six hundred eighty-two thousand dollars ($682,000.00) for the ex-husband and seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) for the ex-wife. In response, offers of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) were made to the ex-husband/plaintiff and three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) to the ex-wife/plaintiff.
In a July, 2011 week long jury trial, Jerry Rolfes obtained a favorable verdict in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court of a combined total of slightly over eight thousand, three hundred dollars ($8,300.00) for two plaintiffs who alleged soft-tissue injury in a sideswipe two vehicle accident. The ex-husband/plaintiff claimed in excess of forty-eight thousand, nine hundred dollars ($48,900.00) in chiropractic treatment and expenses. The ex-wife/plaintiff claimed over seventeen thousand, one hundred dollars ($17,100.00) in chiropractic expenses, in addition to other emergency room and hospital/doctor treatment expenses.
The jury found credibility an issue, and determined the chiropractic treatment/expenses to be excessive. It accordingly awarded the ex-husband four thousand, seven hundred thirty-six dollars and twenty-two cents ($4,736.22) and the ex-wife three thousand, six hundred fifteen dollars and sixty-five cents ($3,615.65) above the respective ten thousand dollar ($10,000.00) and approximately seven thousand, five hundred dollar ($7,500.00) amounts which had been paid on behalf of the plaintiffs as PIP benefits under their Kentucky auto coverage. The PIP carrier had intervened as a plaintiff in the suit.
- Michigan Trial Court Decision on Whether Arson Constitutes Vandalism
- Kentucky Supreme Court Decision on Basic Reparations Benefits
- Kentucky Supreme Court Decision on Excess Insurance Clauses
- Kentucky Supreme Court Decision on UM/UIM Coverage
- Kentucky Supreme Court Decision on Open and Obvious Doctrine
- UPDATE - Amendments to the Kentucky Mine Subsidence Reinsurance Plan
- Michigan Supreme Court Decision on No-Fault Threshold
- Ohio Supreme Court Decision on Recoverability of Attorney-Fee under an Insurance Policy
- Ohio Supreme Court Decision on Equitable Contribution
- Ohio Supreme Court Decision on Admissibility of Evidence of Medical Bill "Write-Offs"
- Summary Judgment Obtained in Suit for Wrongful Death of Young Man in Residential Premises Fire
Jerry Rolfes and Gary Hall obtained summary judgment in June 2010 in a wrongful death suit in Clermont County Common Pleas Court arising from a residential premises fire that tragically resulted in the August 2007 death of a young adult man. The suit had alleged negligence of the homeowners who had removed several smoke detectors for remodeling/painting or had failed to maintain other hardwired units. Focusing in part upon the law applicable to social hosts and their guests, the trial court found no breach of any applicable duty, and also found a lack of any evidence of causation being established by plaintiff's human factors and fire protection engineering experts or otherwise. Plaintiff chose to not pursue any appeal of the summary judgment decision.
- Summary Judgment Granted in Premises Liability Suit Arising from the Death of a Child
Matthew Smith and Tom Glassman obtained summary judgment in favor of the owner and manager of an apartment complex in a Franklin County premises liability case arising from the October 2006 death of a 23-month boy who was killed when he came into contact with a super-duty, dual-wheeled pickup truck on a driveway/parking area in the apartment complex. The pickup truck belonged to a pizza delivery man who parked the vehicle approximately 20 feet away from a playground in the apartment complex while he delivered a pizza. The child was playing on the playground minutes before the pizza delivery man arrived and parked his pickup truck. The adults responsible for supervising the child did not witness his departure from the playground or his approach to the pickup truck. The child, who somehow came to be underneath the pickup truck, was crushed when the pizza delivery man returned to his vehicle and began to drive away. Plaintiff alleged that the playground was unsafe because it was immediately-adjacent to driveway/parking areas and it was not enclosed by a fence. Plaintiff asserted claims against the apartment complex defendants for wrongful death, survivorship, and punitive damages. The trial court granted summary judgment to the apartment complex defendants on the grounds that the positioning of and lack of fencing around the playground in question were open and obvious conditions on the premises which the defendants had no duty to warn persons of or against. Attorneys Smith and Glassman will be pleased to discuss this case, general issues of premises liability, or their handling of other significant tort cases, with interested persons.
- Summary Judgment Granted in Bad Faith Suit Claiming Mold Damage to Home
Tom Glassman of our firm won a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc. in a bad faith suit in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. The homeowners alleged their mold claim was not properly handled, leading them to lose their home and file for bankruptcy. The trial court dismissed both the bad faith claims and breach of contract claims.
- Summary Judgment Granted in Hotel Drowning Suit
Gary Hall of our firm won a motion for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, resulting in the dismissal of a wrongful death suit stemming from a drowning incident at our clients’ hotel. Plaintiffs alleged multiple violations of the Ohio Administrative Code, and those allegations were rejected by the application of the open and obvious defense.