Thought Leadership

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.