If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Supreme Court of Ohio
April 24, 2020

Table of Contents

Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Insurance Law

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

Rethinking Retroactivity in Light of the Supreme Court’s Jury Unanimity Requirement

MICHAEL C. DORF

verdict post

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday in Ramos v. Louisiana, in which it held that the federal Constitution forbids states from convicting defendants except by a unanimous jury, Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the Court’s jurisprudence on retroactivity. Dorf highlights some costs and benefits of retroactivity and argues that the Court’s refusal to issue advisory opinions limits its ability to resolve retroactivity questions in a way that responds to all the relevant considerations.

Read More

Supreme Court of Ohio Opinions

Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Citation: 2020-Ohio-1579

Opinion Date: April 23, 2020

Judge: Maureen O'Connor

Areas of Law: Insurance Law

The Supreme Court accepted a state-law question certified to it by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division and answered that an insured is not permitted to seek full and complete indemnity under a single policy providing coverage for "those sums" that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay because of property damage that takes place during the policy period when the property damage occurred over multiple policy periods. Insured sued Insurer seeking an order requiring Insurer to pay all defense costs incurred in defending the underlying lawsuit and the amounts Insured paid to settle the action. Insurer filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that Insured was not entitled to allocate all defense costs and indemnity to a single policy period when multiple policies and corresponding policy periods were triggered. At issue was whether contract language providing coverage for "those sums" should be treated like contract language providing coverage for "all sums." The Supreme Court answered the question of state law as set forth above but cautioned against using the answer as a blanket rule applicable to all policies with "those sums" language.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043