|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| by Enzo C. Cantalamessa | | June 25, 2008 |
|
| 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. |
| view full article |
|
|
| by Gregory H. Collins | | February 1, 2008 |
|
| 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. |
| view full article |
|
|
| by Richard M. Garner | | October 14, 2007 |
|
| 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. |
| view full article |
|
|
| by Patrick M. Roche | | July 22, 2007 |
|
| So you recently settled another relatively run-of-the-mill injury claim. It might have been a neck or back surgery. It might have been a medical malpractice claim. Whatever it was, the release is signed, the dismissal entry is filed and you closed your file. You're on to the next one... But is it really settled? |
| view full article |
|
|
|
|
|
|
