|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
With a rich history since 1922, Davis & Young is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio with offices in Akron and the Youngstown/Warren area.
Davis & Young provides high quality legal representation to the insurance industry and business community, as well as private institutions and individuals. Many of our insurance clients operate on a regional and national level. |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Thom Wright Argues Before Ohio Supreme Court |
|
|
|
On April 9, 2008, Thom Wright argued the case of John A. LaNeve et al. v. Atlas Recycling, Inc. et al., Nos. 2007-1199, 2007-1342, 2007-1343, before the Supreme Court of Ohio. The case involved the interpretation and application of Civil Rule 15(D), relating to John Doe defendants, and whether the Plaintiffs' failure to follow the mandates of the Rule, in particular, the mandate of personal service, prohibited the Plaintiffs from invoking the one-year savings provision of R.C 2305.19.
The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Thom's client and granted a motion to dismiss filed by a Co-Defendant. The Eleventh Appellate District (Trumbull County) reversed the judgment of the trial court, and the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted both certified conflict and discretionary appeals.
Briefs of the parties are available at the Supreme Court of Ohio website. Video of the oral argument may be viewed online courtesy The Ohio Channel. (Thom's argument commences 9 minutes, 38 seconds into the video.)
|
|
|
| Davis & Young Golf Outing is a Memorable "One" |
|
|
|
The 2008 Davis & Young Golf Outing was a memorable "one," especially for our own Bill Vance who shot a "Hole In One" on Hole 11 at the outing which was held on June 13, 2008 at the Pine Ridge Country Club in Wickliffe, Ohio.
Billy's foursome included our own Susie Grimm, Mary Kay McAndrews of Cincinnati Insurance Company, and Dave Froelich of Erie Insurance Company.
Congratulations Billy – and enjoy your cake!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robinson v. Bates as a Settlement Tactic
Since the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Robinson v. Bates, much argument continues between the Plaintiff's bar and Defense Counsel throughout the discovery process. |
|
|
|
  posted June 25, 2008 by Enzo C. Cantalamessa |
|
|
| | |
|
|
Supreme Court Upholds Caps On Damage
The Ohio Supreme Court filled the lull between Christmas and New Years Day with the announcement of one of the most contentious and important decisions of the decade. On December 27, 2007, the court issued its decision in Arbino v. Johnson, upholding statutory caps on non-economic damages and punitive damages. |
|
|
|
posted February 1, 2008 by Gregory H. Collins |
|
|
| | |
|
|
The Next, Great Insurance Phenomenon - That Wasn't
Historically, Ohio's plaintiffs' bar has enjoyed great success advancing theories of contract ambiguity to access insurance coverage where none was intended. For example, the Scott-Pontzer phenomenon was estimated to have cost Ohio insurers nearly $2 billion before its demise. While few such theories have such a significant impact, each successful claim of ambiguity sends negative ripples through the market - particularly if it involves standardized industry forms as opposed to forms unique to a particular insurer. When this happens, there is potentially the beginning of a new phenomenon. This is the story of such a phenomenon - that wasn't. |
|
|
|
posted October 14, 2007 by Richard M. Garner |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
