.

Case Law Alerts

Ohio Supreme Court Finds that Hidden Damage Discovered After Appraisal Was Completed and Repairs Commenced May Still Be Recoverable

One Church v. Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co., 2024-Ohio-1601

July 1, 2024

by David J. Fagnilli

The plaintiff was insured by the defendant insurance company for property damage to its building, which sustained wind damage in a storm on February 24, 2019. The defendant had an appraiser inspect the damage and issued a report and a check for $3,192.67 for repairs to 42 shingles and some interior locker room damage. The plaintiff then invoked the appraisal provision of the policy, and each party hired their own appraiser. After the appraisers inspected the property, they agreed that the damages were $313,271.98, and no umpire was needed or appointed. The defendant paid this amount less the $900 deductible. 

In October 2020, the plaintiff sought recovery of an additional $206,663.09 for damage not included in the Binding Appraisal Award. The plaintiff asserted that the damages were not discoverable until the repairs were commenced. The defendant rejected this claim, but made a payment of $39,089.52, for recoverable depreciation, and closed its file. 

The plaintiff sued, arguing that the damages were not included in the appraisal because they could not be discovered until after the repairs commenced. The plaintiff also alleged that it would not have needed to go to appraisal if the insurer’s initial estimate of damages had not been so unrealistically low. They further alleged bad faith. 

The defendant counterclaimed and then moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Binding Appraisal Award barred any subsequent claim. The trial court agreed, dismissing the claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the plaintiff’s claim for additional loss, that could not have been known to either party’s appraiser at the time of the initial appraisal, was not barred and could proceed at this early stage of the litigation. 

This opinion contains a good discussion of the application of the appraisal provision in a property insurance policy, a topic which is seldom the subject of appellate opinions. 


 

Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 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.