.

Case Law Alerts

Ohio Supreme Court to Review Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege in Bad Faith Cases.

Melissa and Alexis Eddy v. Farmers Property Casualty Ins. Co., 2024-Ohio-1047

October 1, 2024

by David J. Fagnilli

The Ohio Supreme Court has accepted the insurer’s appeal in this case, which arose out of an underinsured motorist claim, which the insurer had settled. After settling the claim, the insurer was sued for alleged bad faith in its handling and delay in settlement. A discovery dispute arose when the plaintiff demanded that the insurer turn over its entire claim file. The insurer objected to producing its claim file after the point where it had offered to pay policy limits without conditions. 

The trial court, without an in-camera inspection, ordered the insurer to turn over the complete file. The insurer appealed, and the First District Court of Appeals affirmed. 

The insurer has now appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, and the appeal has been accepted for two propositions of law: (1) does Boone v. Vanliner Ins. Co., 91 Ohio St.3d 209, 744 N.E.2d 154 (2001) apply to an insurer’s privileged materials created during litigation between the insurer and its insured? and (2) to the extent that Boone applies to an insurer’s privileged materials created during litigation between the insurer and the insured, is the trial court required to conduct an in-camera inspection of such materials to determine the scope of the exception to the privilege set forth in Boone?

The Boone decision created an exception to the attorney-client and work-product privileges, holding that evidence tending to show an insurer’s bad faith was “not worthy of protection.” Since that decision, Ohio amended the Attorney Client Privilege Statute, R.C. 2317.02, to require a plaintiff to make a “prima-facie showing of bad faith” and the court to conduct an in-camera inspection of the communications before there is a waiver of the privilege. 

This decision will be closely watched by insurers and plaintiffs’ counsel to determine to what extent an insurer is required to produce its claim file in bad faith litigation and whether the earlier decision in Boone will be modified or limited. 


 

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 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.