From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Mon Jun 4, 2001 9:59 pm Subject: New Uninsured/Underinsured law in Ohio
The Ohio Senate passed Senate Bill 97 and sent it to the Ohio House. This bill modifies the existing R.C. 3937.18. Among other things it changes the requirement that an insurer selling auto liability insurance must offer UM/UIM coverage. If you would like a copy of the bill as it was introduced please call my secretary, Ms. Bev Poston at (330)-725-9737 and she will fax you a copy.
From: email@example.com Date: Tue Jun 5, 2001 5:03 pm Subject: New Ohio Supreme Court case on UIM law
The Ohio Supreme Court recently released Littrell v. Wigglesworth (2001), 91 Ohio St. 3d 425. The case deals with the "amounts available for payment" language in R.C. 3937.18 (A) (2), which is the underinsured part of R.C. 3937.18. The opinion holds that for purposes of setoff the amounts actually accessible to and recoverable by an underinsured motorist claimant from all bodily injury liability bonds and insurance policeis is the amount available for payment.
This opinion is very important to anyone litigating a underinsured motorists case. It appears in the May 28th issue of Ohio Bar Report and the advance sheets put out by West Publishing Company.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Wed Jun 6, 2001 8:26 am Subject: Wigglesworth continued
In the opinion Justice Douglas seems to be saying that Medicare liens are to be treated as another claimant. For example a Plaintiff receives $100,000 from the tortfeasor's carrier, but the Medicare lien is for $35,000. The amount "available for payment" is now $65,000 and not $100,000. Therefore the UIM carrier can only offset the $65,000 and not the $100,000. The same analysis was not used by Justice Douglas regarding attorney fees and expenses. Therefore, in the above example, if the Plaintiff's attorney fees and expenses were $40,000, the amount available for payment would still be %65,000.
If anyone has a different analysis, please let me know.
From: email@example.com Date: Wed Jun 6, 2001 11:35 am Subject: More Wigglesworth
REMEMBER: Wigglesworth involved multiple claimants going after Underinsured benefits. It is not known whether the same analysis regarding Medicare liens would apply in cases involving single claimants.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Thu Jun 7, 2001 2:08 pm Subject: RE: New Case on Choice of Law in UM/UIM Cases
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that while Uninsured Motorists/Underinsured Motorist cases involve tortious conduct, they sound in contract and therefore when deciding what state's law to apply in a choice of law situation, trial courts should look to the Restatement of Contracts Sec. 188 for guidance. The case is Ohayon v. Safeco. It involved an accident that happened in Pennsylvania with people who entered into the contract in Ohio. Under the Supreme Court's analysis Ohio law was chosen as the correct law to apply. The case can be read at the Ohio Supreme Court's web site.
From: email@example.com Date: Mon Jun 11, 2001 1:41 pm Subject: Filing Information
Pursuant to Civ. R. 36 (D), all dismissed and subsequently refiled cases must be assigned to the judge to which they were originally assigned. The Medina County Court of Common Pleas, General Division, has revised its filing category sheet to ensure compliance with this rule. This sheet MUST accompany every new filing. Copies of the new filing sheet are available at the Medina County Clerk's Office.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Mon Jun 11, 2001 3:55 pm Subject: Filing Information Continued
Should be Sup.R. 36 (D)and not Civ.R.36 (D). Sorry about that.
From: email@example.com Date: Tue Jun 12, 2001 9:50 am Subject: Change in the Code of Professional Responsibility
Effective July 1, 2001, the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility will require that attorneys who do NOT have malpractice insurance disclose that fact to their clients in writing. They also have to have their clients sign the disclosure statement and keep it in the client's file for five years. The malpractice insurance must have liability limits of $100,000 per occurrence claim and $300,000 in the aggregate.
There is a model disclosure form that was prepared by Ohio Supreme Court. It can be found in the May 7th. issue of Ohio Bar Report at page 444.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Wed Jun 13, 2001 9:50 am Subject: Changes in Civil Rule 41
On July 1, 2001, changes to Civil Rule 41 take place. The most important of these changes is to Civil Rule 41(A). In Civil Rule 41 (A)(1) the Supreme Court added language that makes it clear that a voluntary dismissal must dismiss all claims against a defendant. In Civil Rule 41 (A)(2) language was added to make it clear that a trial court may dismiss by order a claim, as opposed to an action, against a defendant.
It appears that after July 1, 2001, the only way a plaintiff could dismiss one claim of a multi-claim action against a defendant is by court order pursuant to Civil Rule 41 (A)(2).
One issue that may come up after July 1, 2001, is what is the effect of a voluntary dismissal of one claim in a multi-claim action? Does the filing of such a dismissal dismiss all claims against that defendant or is the filing of such a dismissal a nullity?
From: email@example.com Date: Fri Jun 15, 2001 8:36 am Subject: Civil Rule 11 Changes
Civil Rule 11 will be amended on July 1, 2001, to require that attorneys list their telephone numbers, fax numbers, if any; and business e-mail addresses, if any, on pleadings, motions, and other documents. Previously the rule only required addresses and attorney registration numbers, although most attorneys also listed their telephone numbers.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:54 am Subject: Ohio Adopts Attractive Nuisance Doctrine
Yesterday in Bennett v. Stanley (2001), 92 Ohio St. 3d 35, the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the attractive nuisance doctrine.
In the first paragraph of the syllabus the Court sets forth the elements of the cause of action. The Court adopted Section 339 of the Restatement of the Law, Torts, (1965). The justices concurring in that paragraph were Chief Justice Moyer and Justices Douglas, Pfeifer, Resnick, and Sweeney. Justices Cook and Lundberg Stratton dissented.
In the second paragraph the Court holds that while the doctrine is not ordinarily applicable to adults, an adult seeking damages for his/her own injuries may invoke the doctrine if the injury was suffered in an attempt to rescue a child from a danger created by the defendant's negligence. The Justices agreeing on the second paragraph were again Douglas, Pfeifer, Resnick, and Sweeney, but Chief Justice Moyer did not concur in the second paragraph. He dissented along with Justices Cook and Lundberg Stratton from this paragraph.
From: email@example.com Date: Mon Jun 18, 2001 9:53 am Subject: Motions to Compel Discovery Under Ohio Civil Rule 37 (E)
Motions to compel discovery under Ohio Civil Rule 37 must be accompanied by a "statement" reciting the efforts made to resolve any discovery disputes. Recently motions to compel have been filed in my court which did not contain such statements. Motions which do not contain such statements run the risk of being summarily overruled. Some courts require that the parties engage in oral discussions to resolve the dispute before filing a Civil Rule 37 motion. Although a literal reading of the Rule supports such a position, I have never adopted that position. I believe that letters between parties and/or their attorneys complies with the spirit and wording of the rule.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Tue Jun 19, 2001 9:31 am Subject: Medina County Civil Filing Fees to Increase July 1, 2001
Good Morning: The Medina County Common Pleas Court, General Division, will increase its filing fees on July 1, 2001. The $50.00 increase will be used to help fund the Court's mediation program when the grant from the Ohio Supreme Court expires on June 30, 2002. The increase will apply to complaints and there will now be a $50.00 filing fee for filing an answer with a counterclaim.
All the funds generated by either the increase for complaints or the new filing fee for counterclaims will be earmarked for funding the mediation program. The Ohio Revised Code allows such fees to be imposed, but they cannot be used for any other purpose.
There will be no fee for filing answers with cross-claims.