Court Rulings

The plaintiff, which previously mined and sold industrial talc that allegedly contained asbestos, sought, inter alia, a declaratory judgment to deter- mine, inter alia, its rights and obligations under certain insurance policies issued by the defendant insurance companies as to the costs of defending and indemnifying the plaintiff in numerous civil actions brought against it for personal injuries sustained allegedly as a result of exposure to asbestos. The defendants consisted of approximately thirty insurance companies, including H Co. and C Co., primary insurers that issued certain insurance policies to the plaintiff between 1948 and 2008, when it mined and sold talc, and L Co., M Co., and P Co., secondary insurers that issued umbrella or excess coverage to the plaintiff during that same period. Prior to trial, the court issued certain scheduling orders separating the trial into four phases, the first two of which were tried to the court and focused on issues pertaining to how defense and indem- nification costs were to be allocated between the plaintiff and the defen- dants, specifically with respect to long latency claims alleging that the claimants' exposure to asbestos caused a series of injuries that devel- oped gradually over the course of years, thereby implicating multiple insurance policy periods. The court also considered, inter alia, whether certain pollution and occupational disease exclusions in some of the secondary insurance policies precluded coverage. After the first two phases of the trial were complete, the trial court issued memoranda of decision applying the time on the risk rule of contract law, which pro- vides for pro rata allocation of defense and indemnity costs for asbestos related disease claims, in order to determine how to allocate those costs among the parties. In doing so, the trial court adopted the continuous trigger theory of insurance coverage, pursuant to which every insurer that had issued a policy in effect from the date that

This appeal arises from a dispute over an unorthodox, two-page contract pursuant to which the plaintiff sold his home to the defendant and continued to reside in the home, in accordance with a lease-back provision, for "up to five years" with rent "not to exceed $950 a month." The contract also included provisions for "equity participation," including the option for the plaintiff to buy the property back "at prevailing market value." The plaintiff filed a complaint asserting, inter alia, claims for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, quiet title, and breach of contract. The defendant answered and asserted counterclaims, inter alia, for breach of contract and to remove the plaintiff from the property. Following a trial, the trial court dismissed the complaint upon the principal findings that the plaintiff lacked credibility and was the first to materially breach the contract. The trial court also ruled that the defendant owned the property and was entitled to immediate possession but denied the defendant's claim to recover his attorney's fees. Both parties appeal. We affirm the dismissal of all of the plaintiff's claims and the trial court's determination that the defendant owned the property and was entitled to immediate possession. As for the attorney's fees, we hold that the defendant was entitled to recover his reasonable attorney's fees based on Section 6 of the contract which provides that in the event suit is filed to enforce the contract, "the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all cost of such enforcement including reasonable attorney's fees as approved by the Court."

This post-divorce appeal concerns the trial court's modification of a permanent parenting plan. We affirm the parenting plan determination and all other rulings by the trial court.

Trial court erred in affirming SPBR decision dismissing employee's appeal under R.C. 124.341 for lack of jurisdiction. SPBR improperly imposed requirements not contained in statute, maintaining that whistleblower protection is not available where supervisor is already aware of violation and where employee is required by employer to report misconduct. SPBR also improperly determined that R.C. 124.341 is inapplicable where violation alleged is attorney misconduct under Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.