.

Case Law Alerts

Ohio Appellate Court holds the intentional demolition of interior space was not an accident or occurrence that triggered coverage under contractor’s CGL policy.

Al Neyer, L.L.C. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2020-Ohio-5417

April 1, 2021

by David J. Fagnilli

The insured, Neyer, was in contract negotiations with Kings Trust to renovate space in a commercial building that had been used as a restaurant. Before entering into a contract with Kings Trust, and without notice to Kings Trust, Neyer’s project manager went ahead with the demolition of the restaurant space. As it turned out, Kings Trust did not have the right to eliminate the restaurant, and the demolition was a breach of King Trust’s lease with the building owner. Neyer was sued for the damage the demolition did to the building among other things. The trial court held that there was an occurrence and coverage for the damages under Neyer’s CGL policy because Neyer’s project manager did not know that Neyer did not have authorization to proceed.

The First District court of Appeals reversed, finding that the unauthorized demolition did not constitute an occurrence under the policy and was not covered. The significance of this decision is that it further develops and explores the issues raised in the Ohio Supreme court decision in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Sys., 133 Ohio St.3d 476, 2012-Ohio-4712, 979 N.E.2d 269, and the distinction between claims that arise out of an occurrence that is covered by insurance and claims “which business management can and should control or manage” and are, therefore, not fortuitous or covered by insurance.

 

Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.