Case Title: Thorley v. Am. States Preferred

Citation: 2003-Ohio-2148

Docket Number: 20020753

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Thorley v. Am. States Preferred, 98 Ohio St.3d 493, 2003-Ohio-2148.] 
 
 
THORLEY, APPELLANT, v. AMERICAN STATES PREFERRED ET AL.; WESTFIELD 
INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Thorley v. Am. States Preferred, 98 Ohio St.3d 493, 2003-Ohio-2148.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment reversed pursuant to Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. 
Ins. Co., and cause remanded to trial court. 
(No. 2002-0753 — Submitted April 16, 2003 — Decided May 7, 2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 20827, 2002-Ohio-
1253. 
__________________ 
{¶1} 
Sua sponte, the judgment of the court of appeals is summarily 
reversed pursuant to Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 186, 
2002-Ohio-7217, 781 N.E.2d 927.  This cause is remanded to the trial court to 
consider whether the insurer was prejudiced under Ferrando. 
 
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and O’Connor, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. 
 
COOK, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 
{¶2} 
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to remand this 
case for an analysis of prejudice under Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 98 
Ohio St.3d 186, 2002-Ohio-7217, 781 N.E.2d 927.  I dissented from paragraph 
two of the Ferrando syllabus, in which the court merely presumed the prejudicial 
effect of an insured’s breach of a subrogation provision in an insurance policy.  
Id. at ¶ 105.  I believe that an insured’s breach of a subrogation-related provision 
of an insurance policy is per se prejudicial.  There is no need for the additional 
time and expense of a factual inquiry into the issue.  This is particularly so in a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Scott-Pontzer case, in which a party may be asserting an extremely stale claim or 
one in which the possibility of collection from the tortfeasor never existed and 
therefore the usual issues of the insurer’s refusal to defend or participate never 
arose.  See Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 
710 N.E.2d 1116. 
{¶3} 
As I explained in Ferrando, the rights of the insurer are actually 
prejudiced by the breach of a consent-to-settle or subrogation provision of an 
insurance policy.  Since the tortfeasor has been released from further liability, it is 
my opinion that any inquiry is a useless exercise that merely prolongs the tortuous 
routes created by Scott-Pontzer. 
{¶4} 
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent 
__________________ 
 
Lawrence J. Scanlon and Michael J. Elliott, for appellant. 
 
Davis & Young, David G. Utley and Susan F. Houlihan, for appellee. 
 
Elk & Elk Co., L.P.A., and Todd O. Rosenberg, urging reversal for amicus 
curiae Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers. 
__________________