.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Our Scranton, Pennsylvania, Office

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023

June 1, 2023

by John T. McGrath Jr.

The Scranton office of Marshall Dennehey is now in its 30th year. The firm began in Scranton with two attorneys practicing workers’ compensation law. Over the years, it has grown, and today, when it is at full capacity, there are 23 lawyers in the office. Attorneys presently working in the Scranton office, including myself, Ben Nicolosi, Leo Bohanski, Ross Carrozza, Pat Boland, and Robert Smith, have been with the firm over two decades. Many of those just mentioned have been here for over 25 years, and Ross has been here since the office opened. Over the last few years, several of our longest-tenured and esteemed attorneys have retired. Jim Pocius, John Aponick, Jim Wilson, Joe Vender, and Jennifer Callahan all retired, each having had between 20 and 30 years experience with the firm. Replacing that talent is almost impossible, but we have been very fortunate to bring on some young attorneys and lateral hires who have allowed our office to continue to flourish and grow. The experience and talent in our practice department is unmatched in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Those groups include workers’ compensation, casualty, professional liability, and health care.

The workers’ compensation group is led by Mike Sebastian. Mike has worked in the workers’ compensation realm for over 30 years and has a long and distinguished list of clients who rely on him for all their workers’ compensation matters. As he has for many years, Ross Carrozza also ably litigates workers’ compensation cases. In addition, Ross is a leading expert in Medicare Set-Asides. The 60 years of combined experience possessed by Mike and Ross in workers’ compensation is an asset to the Scranton office and allows us to handle the most involved and difficult workers’ compensation cases. 

The Casualty Department in the Scranton office presently has six attorneys: Ben Nicolosi, John Nealon, Leo Bohanski, Sarah Argo, Mike Connolly, and myself. Our experience in the casualty arena is envied by all of our competitors. Collectively, the department has tried over 200 cases to verdict in the counties in which we serve. Presently, I act as the firm’s Auto Liability Practice Group Chair. Ben Nicolosi handles high-profile trucking accident and product liability matters. Although many of the cases the department handles contain requests for punitive damages, no one in our department has ever been hit with a punitive damage award. Considering the volume of cases we handle and their serious nature, that is truly an accomplishment. There is not a casualty case or issue the Scranton office has not handled, and handled effectively. The Casualty Department litigates auto accidents, dram shop cases, product liability matters, construction defect cases, slip and falls, and any other type of casualty case that finds its way to our office. 

Our Professionally Liability Department, when fully staffed, is the largest department in our office. Presently, William McPartland, who is the Co-Chair of our Special Education Law Practice Group, works with several school districts throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania. Many of the school districts in Luzerne, Lackawanna, and the outlying counties rely on Will for all of their education law practice needs. He also handles employment law and civil rights cases. Mark Kozlowski and Patrick Boland have very similar practices, which include civil rights, municipal, and professional liability practice litigation. They represent attorneys, engineers, and architects, and do a significant amount of work with homeowners associations and any disputes arising therein. Their practice continues to grow. Presently, Jordan Mazzoni, an associate, works with both of them, assisting with their growing practice. 

Rob Smith is also in the Professional Lability Department, handling (almost exclusively) bad faith cases. Rob has a very large practice in this extremely specialized area, and several carriers look to him to handle their bad faith litigation. Underinsured motorist and uninsured motorist cases continue to be one of the biggest practice areas in the state for bad faith. Rob would certainly be considered an expert in that area. 

Finally, Tom Specht is a member of our Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group. He litigates appeals in state and federal courts, having done so for the past 25 years. He also handles serious and complex pre-trial matters/motions (of a dispositive nature) and assists trial counsel in their preparation for trial, as well as appellate trial monitoring and motion/strategic assistance at trial. Tom’s practice is extremely varied, in that he litigates cases from every practice area within the firm and has the ability and experience to assist at any stage of the litigation process. He is a helpful, valuable resource for all of the attorneys in the office. 

Our Professional Liability Department in the Scranton office is larger than those of all of our competitors in the area combined. This means that, if you were to put all of the professional liability attorneys in Northeastern Pennsylvania, other than those working for Marshall Dennehey, in one room, and the Marshall Dennehey attorneys in another, our department would outnumber the attorneys in the other room. Their expertise is unmatched. The variety of cases they handle is truly something to marvel at. 

Last, but not least, is our Health Care Department. It is composed of five attorneys presently and will be expanding shortly. Victoria Scanlon is the supervising attorney in the Health Care Liability Practice Group of the Scranton office. She is an experienced litigator with nearly 20 years of experience representing physicians, midwives, nurse practitioners, nurses, physical therapists, hospitals, ambulatory service centers, and more. She also works with long-term personal care facilities and providers. Vicky has tried many cases to verdict and is an outstanding trial attorney. 

Missy Dziak, a shareholder, as well, and has, for more than a decade, defended nurses, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, and really anyone in the health care field. She is licensed in both Pennsylvania and New York. Aside from medical malpractice, she also represents and advises one of the largest national independent food service distributors, providing strategic legal guidance in high-exposure litigation. Missy serves on Marshall Dennehey’s Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion Committee, which works to improve the recruitment, retention, and advancement of diverse attorneys and professionals. Missy is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Commission on Women and Profession and the Promotion of Women. She also has tried several cases to verdict in both Pennsylvania and New York. 

Matt Keris is a shareholder in the Health Care Department who defends doctors as well as long-term care facilities. He is the Chair of the Electronic Medical Record and Audit Trail Practice Group. Matt tried the first case in Pennsylvania to verdict during the COVID-19 pandemic in July of 2020. Matt is the president of the DRI Foundation, which focuses on wellness and charitable interests affiliated with the Defense Research Institute. He is a former DRI board member and is currently on the steering committee for the Annual Insurance Roundtable. Matt was formerly president of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute and continues to serve as co-chair of the Medical Malpractice Liability Committee. Finally, he has twice-served as president of the Pennsylvania Association for Healthcare Risk Management and is an active member of the Claims and Litigation Alliance for American Legal Connections. Matt has tried many cases to verdict with over 20 years of experience in the field. 

Rob Aldrich has worked his entire career defending health care professionals and institutions against malpractice liability claims in Pennsylvania and New York. Rob specializes in defending dental malpractice and long-term care liability cases. Rob also has extensive experience defending trucking and transportation companies in auto liability cases. Finally, he serves as an at-large board member for the Pennsylvania Defense Institute. 

Patty Lafferty also has been a great addition to the healthcare department. Patty has 20 years of litigation experience, with approximately ten years focusing solely on the defense of health care providers. She represents physicians, nurses, advance practice providers, physician group hospitals, and skilled nursing facilities in medical malpractice cases throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania. Prior to joining us, Patty tried cases as a prosecutor in the Lackawanna County District Attorney’s Office. She tried multiple felony and misdemeanor cases. She was also an Assistant City Solicitor for the City of Scranton, working with the mayor, prior to joining Marshall Dennehey. Patty is an active member in the legal community, serving on the Board of Directors for the Lackawanna County Bar Association. 

As outlined above, the Health Care Department has tried dozens and dozens of cases to verdict. Their experience and knowledge makes them the leading medical malpractice department in Northeastern Pennsylvania. 

Scranton continues to be fortunate in that we have an experienced support staff that can be depended on to go well above and beyond their job classifications. We have several paralegals and administrative support staff who have been with us for 10-25 years. Their dedication to their jobs and the attorneys they work with is appreciated. Each and every one of them can be counted on to assist in any project or trial that may be on the horizon. They are willing and able to help when others are either out of the office or overworked. The teamwork and comradery amongst and between them is an asset to our firm. 

The team of professionals assembled in the Scranton office provides outstanding legal services to all of the clients. Presently, our footprint in Pennsylvania consists of Tioga, Bradford, Susquehanna, Wayne, Lycoming, Sullivan, Wyoming, Montour, Columbia, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Pike, Monroe, and Carbon counties, as well as the Middle and Eastern Districts of Pennsylvania, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 

All of the attorneys mentioned above live and, for the most part, grew up in the Northeast Pennsylvania area. Our knowledge of the courts, judges, and the procedures followed in each of the counties and federal courts around us allows this office to represent our clients in a professional and efficient manner, which the courts truly appreciate. Our attorneys are on a first-name basis with many of the judges we litigate before and their support staff. This allows us to represent our clients in a way that is unrivaled in the area.

Also interesting is the differences in the counties in which we work. Most of the counties would be considered extremely conservative, but three of them are considered by our clients to be leaning liberal or extremely liberal. Having the knowledge to navigate these counties and courts goes a long way in providing the best advice and representation to our clients. 

Our office’s experience and ability to handle a wide variety of cases at any stage of the litigation process—investigation, pretrial, discovery, trial, arbitration, mediation, settlement, or appeal—allows our clients to rest easy, knowing that they are getting excellent representation no matter the type of case or its procedural posture. The amount of work we receive in Northeastern Pennsylvania from our clients is greatly appreciated, and I believe is attributable to the fine work done by each of our attorneys, paralegals, and administrative staff. We are simply the best law firm (not just defense) in Northeast Pennsylvania.

 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal 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. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Perlmutter Provides Predictability for Punitive Damages Claims in Florida

In a much anticipated decision, the Florida Supreme Court provided clarity for the standards of proof for punitive damages claims in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company, SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026). Litigants and trial judges must be mindful of the standards laid out by the Court. And, defense practitioners must be prepared to alter their strategies to defend against such claims. Perlmutter came to the Court from the Fourth District, based on conflict jurisdiction with decisions from the Second and Fifth District and on certification of a question of great public importance as to the standard of proof for punitive damages claims at the pleading stage. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Perlmutter, 376 So. 3d 24, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). In the underlying case, the Fourth District made two conclusions. First, it held that a “trial court must consider the evidentiary showing by all parties at the hearing on the motion to amend, that is, evidence ‘in the record’ and evidence ‘proffered by the claimant.’”  376 So. 3d at 33. Second, the Fourth held that it “interpreted section 768.72(1) and (2) to require the trial court to make a preliminary determination of whether a reasonable jury, viewing the totality of proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the movant, could find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted.  Id. at 34 (underscoring in the original). In making these conclusions, the court cautioned trial courts that the “preliminary determination” analysis did not entitle the trial court to decide whether the evidence is clear and convincing and noted that the trial court should not weigh evidence and should not determine witness credibility. Id. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and answered the certified question in the negative. It quashed the decision below and remanded the case for application of the following standards: The trial court should consider only the evidence identified or proffered by the claimant; it should not entertain an evidentiary counter-submission from the opponent. The trial court should consider whether a reasonable person could conclude based on the claimant’s evidence, that the defendant committed “intentional misconduct” or “gross negligence” as defined in section 768.72(2) or section 768.72(3). The trial court must review the request for punitive damages in the context of the underlying claims. The trial court should not apply the clear and convincing standard of proof in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at the pleading stage. The trial court does not act as a fact-finder; the trial court must not weigh the claimant’s evidence—it cannot decide the truth of the matter. The trial court must consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but the allegations in the proposed amended complaint are not themselves evidence. Perlmutter, SC2024-0058 at 13-15 (emphasis added). In explaining these standards, the Court interpreted the text of the statute and compared it to a related statute which governs punitive damages in the nursing home context. The nursing home statute expressly calls for evidentiary submissions by “the parties” and expressly tells the trial court to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant could satisfy the “clear and convincing evidence” standard at trial. Id. at 17-18 (comparing the text of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, with section 400.0237, Florida Statutes). Without that express language in section 768.72, the statute could not be applied in the same manner. With these standards specially delineated for the trial courts, the Court is “confident that its interpretation of section 768.72(1) will not frustrate the effectiveness of the statute in accomplishing the Legislature’s textually evident purposes.” Id.  at 22 (cleaned up). This remains to be seen. While Perlmutter provides predictability and clarity for trial courts when reviewing the evidentiary submissions in support of a punitive damages claim, the decision will not likely impact the numbers of punitive damages motions filed. Rather, these new parameters will change the way claims are defended, reminiscent of a time when rulings on punitive damages were only subject to certiorari review and appellate courts were limited in reviewing procedural errors. This decision will likely deflate the level-playing field that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(G) addressed by allowing appeals of orders granting and denying punitive damages amendments. Further, Perlmutter may have impliedly created a call to action for the Legislature to amend section 768.72(1) in the same manner it amended section 400.0237 to allow the courts to analyze “admissible evidence submitted by the parties” and determine at a hearing whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant at trial would be able to demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that the recovery of punitive damages is warranted. Until then, defendants must adjust their strategies. To adapt to these new standards, defense practitioners will need to tailor their strategy for defending punitive damages claims since they can no longer submit a counter-proffer or urge a court to apply the clear and convincing standard at the pleading phase. Instead, defendants will need to attack the deficiencies in the claimant’s pleadings and proffer. If the trial court fails to serve as a gatekeeper, and does not apply the above standards, then defendants can pursue an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(G). If a nonfinal appeal is taken, then defendants should move to stay any intrusive financial discovery while the appellate court analyzes the issues on appeal. Finally, defendants should utilize Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to serve as a screening device to allow the trial court to analyze all evidence and prevent nonmeritorious punitive damages claims from proceeding to a jury.

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Self-Referral Prohibition Does Not Cover Prescriptions Written by Physicians with Ownership Interests in Dispensing Pharmacies

700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (State Workers’ Insurance Fund); Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 MAP 2024; decided June 16, 2026; by Justice Mundy.   In this case, Drs. Miteswar Purewal and Shailen Jalali, treating physicians for workers’ compensation claimants, wrote prescriptions for various medications that were filled by 700 Pharmacy. The worker’s compensation insurer refused to pay for the prescriptions on the basis that they were illegal self-referrals under the Act. 700 Pharmacy subsequently filed fee review applications with The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Review Office. At a fee review hearing, both physicians stipulated they had a financial interest in the pharmacy.  The physicians argued that the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act does not bar self-referrals on prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services, since the provision does not specifically identify prescription drugs. The Fee Review Hearing Officer rejected this argument and found that prescriptions for medications are prohibited under the “goods or services” language included in the provision. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and the court affirmed, agreeing with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation of “goods and services” as encompassing prescriptions. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Hearing Officer and the Commonwealth Court, holding that the term “goods and services” in the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act did not include prescriptions. According to the Court, “goods and services” was not a catch-all, but simply explanatory as to the eight enumerated categories in the provision. The provision (Section 306(f.1)(3)(iii)) reads, in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for a provider to refer a person for laboratory, physical therapy, rehabilitation, chiropractic, radiation oncology, psychometric, home infusion therapy  or diagnostic imaging, goods or services pursuant to this section if the provider has a financial interest with the person or in the entity that receives the referral. The Court said that if the General Assembly wanted to specifically include prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services in the Anti-Referral Provision, they would have done so. They pointed out that prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services were included by the legislature in Section 306 (f.1)(3)(vi) of the Act as to reimbursement, and claimed that their omission from the Anti-Referral Provision supports the conclusion that those services are not included in the Anti-Referral Provision’s self-referral prohibition.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Personal Emails of Public Employees and Officials are Subject to OPRA

In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that government-related emails, which are contained within personal email accounts, are government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), and a log of those emails must be produced when requested. In reaching this decision, the court conducted an analysis of the OPRA and cited previous cases that held that emails do in fact fall within OPRA’s definition of a record and must be produced when requested pursuant to the Act. The court in Rosetti then had to answer the question as to whether public officials’ personal email accounts that are used for government purposes are subject to OPRA, and found that they are. Rosetti made an OPRA request to the Board of Education seeking email logs from Board members’ personal email accounts. The Board refused to produce the logs and indicated that it was not under any obligation to produce personal email account logs, only from government-related email accounts. The issue was whether a log had to be produced for Board members’ personal email accounts, which they used to conduct Board business. The Board argued that while it was possible to create a log for government-related email accounts through its IT Department, it was not possible to do so for personal email accounts. The court rejected this argument and ruled that Board members are required to search their personal email accounts and create a log of government-related emails housed in those accounts. Once completed, each Board member then must submit a certification detailing the searches that were conducted. The court went one step further with a suggestion to government employees and officials, stating, “[g]overnment agencies should strongly advise their employees, elected officials, and others engaged in government-related business to refrain from using their personal email accounts when conducting government-related business.”  Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this case and others pertaining to the OPRA. 

News

Stacey R. Gorin Installed as President of the Burlington County Bar Association

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional Liability.

Portrait of Thomas Glassman. Text: Joining our Cincinnati Office as a Shareholder in the Casualty Department

News

Marshall Dennehey Adds Shareholder Thomas F. Glassman in Cincinnati, Expands Casualty Practice in Ohio and Kentucky

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.