Professional Liability

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of an insurer and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings, holding that the plaintiff did not need an expert to proceed to trial on a bad faith claim. 

The court reviewed Ohio case law on the standard for bad faith claims, noting that intent is not an element of a bad faith claim, and quoted from prior Supreme Court decisions, holding: “Behavior that is unreasonable, uninformed, or irrational in light of the circumstances can establish a lack of good faith irrespective of the party's subjective intentions.” The insurer argued that expert testimony was required in other professional negligence cases, citing for example claims against insurance agents. The court rejected this argument, quoting a First District case stating: “[t]here is no blanket rule requiring expert testimony against an insurance broker in all cases.” Burlington Ins. Co. v. Artisan Mechanical, Inc., 188 Ohio App.3d 560, 2010-Ohio-3142, 936 N.E.2d 114, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.). 

The court further noted that a bad faith claim is not a professional negligence claim, stating: “Furthermore, our research has failed to disclose authority in Ohio discussing the status of claims representatives or adjusters or classifying them as the type of professionals whose conduct, like that of a doctor, might not be readily understood by jurors.” The case was sent back to the trial court for a decision on the merits. 
 

 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey 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 © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}