David is a member of the casualty department handling matters involving products liability, trucking and transportation, automobile liability, premises liability, construction accidents, uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage and personal injury. He has represented insureds in business disputes, construction claims, complex litigation and business arbitrations. David has also handled litigation concerning defamation, contractor claims, property use disputes, and commercial and business property losses. He has extensive experience negotiating favorable settlements independently and through mediation and other forms of ADR.
Additional areas of practice include insurance coverage, contract interpretation and analysis for first and third party claims; and defense of coverage disputes and bad faith lawsuits involving commercial general liability, commercial property, commercial vehicle, umbrella, auto and homeowners’ policies; and claims for environmental damage, asbestos and other toxic torts.
David is admitted to practice in all Ohio Courts, all Federal District Courts in Ohio, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. David is a life member of the Eighth District Judicial Conference. He is a member of the American, Ohio State, Cleveland Metropolitan, and Lake County Bar Associations, the Defense Research Institute, the Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, the Cleveland Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, the Claims & Litigation Management Alliance, and the Justinian Forum.
A shareholder with an AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell rating, David has also been selected by his peers as an "Ohio Super Lawyer" annually since 2010, as published in Cincinnati Magazine and Northern Ohio Live Magazine. Since 2009, he has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America©.
David received his B.A. from Southern California College in 1980, and his juris doctor from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law in 1985.
Results
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Coverage & Bad Faith
Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud
July 27, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy. The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal. The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount. Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith. In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim. The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.” Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages. However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority. *Thomas F. Glassman, a shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Cincinnati office, filed a brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, in support of the insurer’s position.
Legal Updates for Coverage & Bad Faith
Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Rule on Attorney-Client Privilege and Communications Between Insurer and Its Outside Counsel
February 27, 2026
On February 26, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion in Eddy v. Farmer’s Property Cas. Ins. Co., Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-626, clarifying the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine in relationship to claims for alleged bad faith against an insurer. In a 5-2 decision, the court held that the 2007 amendments to R.C. 2317.02(A)(2), the Ohio attorney-client privilege statute, supersede the court’s prior decision in Boone v. Vanliner Ins. Co., 2001-Ohio-27. In Boone, the court had held that: In an action alleging bad faith denial of insurance coverage, the insured is entitled to discovery claims file materials containing attorney-client communications related to the issue of coverage that were created prior to the denial of coverage. The Boone decision allowed plaintiffs to allege bad faith, and then obtain pre-suit claims file materials that might otherwise be covered by the attorney-client or work product privilege. The court’s decision in Eddy clarifies and reestablishes the attorney-client and work product privileges for insurers. The court, relying on post-Boone revisions to R.C. 2317.02, determined that those revisions abrogated the Boone decision. The court specifically held that: [P]rivileged documents may only be disclosed upon a prima facie showing of bad faith, and then only if they “are related to the attorney’s aiding or furthering an ongoing or future commission of bad faith by the client” as determined through an in camera inspection. Questions about work-product doctrine are controlled by Civ.R. 26(B)(4): such materials may only be disclosed upon a “showing of good cause.” Eddy at ¶ 40. This issue has been extensively litigated for the past 20 years, and the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision should bring clarity to the issue and instruction for lower courts in dealing with bad faith claims and discovery issues as they relate to an insurer’s claim file materials and communication with counsel.
