18400 Von Karman, Ste. 300, Irvine, CA 92612 | Tel: (949) 553-1010 | Fax: (949) 553-2050 | Email Us
Ohio
CHOICE OF FORUM
Choice of Law | Admission of Extrinsic Evidence | Insurer Allocation | Pre-Tender Fees | Statute of Limitations |
---|---|---|---|---|
Most significant relationship test | Facts set forth in the pleadings alone | If one claim is potentially covered, must defend entire suit | Not recoverable | 15 Years |
Ohayon v. Safeco Ins. Co., 747 N.E.2d 206, 209 (Ohio 2001) | Sherwin-Williams v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, 813 F. Supp. 576, 583 (N.D. Ohio 1993) | Grand River Lime Co. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 289 N.E.2d 360, 364 (Ohio Ct. App. 1972) Sharonville v. American Employers Ins. Co., 846 N.E.2d 833, 835 (Ohio 2006) | Dover Lake Park v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2003 Ohio App. LEXIS 2973, at *9 (Ohio Ct. App. June 25, 2003) | (OH ST § 2305.06) |
Pre-Judgment Interest | Late Notice | Public Policy Bar | Independent Counsel | Atty's Fees/Decl. Relief Action |
---|---|---|---|---|
Federal short-term rate | Reasonableness and notice-prejudice, but burden is on insured to demonstrate no prejudice | Bar to indemnity and defense | Limited right to independent counsel | Not recoverable |
(OH ST § 1343.03) | Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 781 N.E.2d 927, 947-48 (Ohio 2002) Sesko v. Hutchins Caw, Inc., 2006 Ohio 5434, ¶ 22 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) | Geraci v. Conte, 2000 WL 1739294, at *4 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2000) | Lusk v. Imperial Cas. & Indem. Co., 603 N.E.2d 420, 423 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 59 N.E.2d 199, 205 (Ohio 1945) | Ohio Rev. Code § 2721.16 Horstmann v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5354, at *13 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2000) Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Rase, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3302, at *11 (Ohio Ct. App. July 23, 2001) |
(Consultant) Case settled on favorable terms following pursuit of a motion for summary judgment re the design patent where exposure for sale of the fruit legging product created potential coverage depended on proof of advertising and fell within the policy language for misappropriation of an advertising idea.