Title: Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Estate of McClain

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Estate of McClain, 98 Ohio St.3d 492, 2003-Ohio-2147.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE, v. ESTATE OF MCCLAIN, 
APPELLANT. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Estate of McClain, 98 Ohio St.3d 492, 2003-
Ohio-2147.] 
Motion for summary reversal granted. 
(No. 2002-0641 — Submitted April 16, 2003 — Decided May 7, 2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Greene County, No. 2001-CA-96, 2002-
Ohio-1190. 
__________________ 
{¶1} 
On motion for summary reversal.  Appellant’s motion for summary 
reversal is granted.  This cause is remanded to the trial court to consider whether 
the insurer was prejudiced under Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 98 Ohio 
St.3d 186, 2002-Ohio-7217, 781 N.E.2d 927. 
 
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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
time and expense of a factual inquiry into the issue.  This is particularly so in a 
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. 
__________________ 
 
Freund, Freeze & Arnold, Stephen C. Findley, Shaun A. Roberts and 
Richard C. Brooks Jr., for appellee. 
 
Maney & Brookes and Mark C. Brookes, for appellant. 
 
Boyk & Crossmock, L.L.C., and Steven L. Crossmock, urging reversal for 
amicus curiae Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers. 
__________________