.

Case Law Alerts

Ohio Supreme Court Applies Tort Conflict of Law Rules to an Insurance Bad Faith Claim.

Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., Inc., 2023-Ohio-3921

January 1, 2024

by David J. Fagnilli

In this 5-2 decision from the Ohio Supreme Court, the majority held that the tort conflict of law rules found in Section 145 of 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Conflict of Laws, apply to an insurance bad faith lawsuit. The plaintiff, Scott Fetzer, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio, brought suit against various insurers seeking indemnity for liability it incurred at two superfund sites located in Michigan. The subject insurance policies were allegedly issued to a company that Scott Fetzer acquired, which was headquartered in Indiana. In addition to seeking coverage, Scott Fetzer alleged that one of the insurers had acted in bad faith. A dispute arose as to whether Ohio, Michigan or Indiana law applied to the bad faith claim, since the laws were substantially different with regard to permissible discovery and recovery for alleged bad faith in each of these three states. 

The insurer argued that the court should apply contract choice of law analysis, and Scott Fetzer argued that tort choice of law rules should apply to the bad faith claim. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and court of appeals decision applying tort conflict of law rules found in Section 145 of 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Conflict of Laws, to the insurance bad faith claims. The Supreme Court noted that bad faith claims sound in tort and are not rooted in any particular text of a contract and, instead, arise by operation of law.


 

Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2024 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 © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, 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.