Court Opinion

ID: 9467879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:58:42.1647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:34.410039
License: Public Domain

GEORGE CLIFTON EDWARDS, Jr., Chief Judge,
dissenting.
With all respect to my colleagues, I would affirm the District Judge in this appeal. Of course, we apply Ohio law in any diversity case; but where, as here, the facts are sui generis, we should apply that law as we believe the Ohio Supreme Court would apply it if it had this particular case to decide.
To me, reversal of the District Court’s judgment serves to reward this insurance company for fraudulent concealment of material facts from its insured, thereby securing the insured’s contribution of $56,000 to the over the limits settlement. Additionally, the insurance company continued fraudulently to conceal the material facts upon which the present judgment is based until after the Ohio statute of limitations as to tort claims had run.
I believe that if the Ohio Supreme Court had this classic example of an insurance company’s betrayal of its insured’s interests before it, the court would affirm the reasoning and decision of the trial judge.