Court Opinion

ID: 9489436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:15:55.828329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:32.009555
License: Public Domain

BOGGS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
While I fully agree with the court’s disposition of this case, I write separately to make a few significant points. I would not address the McCarran-Ferguson Act issue contained in Section III.C, pp. 9-13, because the revisions to our opinion that now dispose of the RICO claim make it unnecessary to address the question of preemption. In addition, I am also not in agreement with the court’s statement in the last paragraph of Section I that “the Ohio Supreme Court also interpreted Ohio contract law to hold that the Bank breached its contracts with the plaintiffs when it purchased the additional insurance.” See Kenty, 67 F.3d at 1261. The Ohio Su*396preme Court merely allowed a claim for tor-tious interference with contract to go forward under Ohio’s analog to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Finally, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ RICO and National Bank Holding Company Act claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Only their National Bank Act claim was disposed of on summary judgment. Our revisions continue not to take consistent notice of this fact.