News

On December 19, 2007, Adam E. Carr lectured at a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar for lawyers entitled, "Building Your Civil Trial Skills" at the Sheraton Suites in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.  The seminar was sponsored by the National Business Institute.

RECENT MEDIA

Tiffin Advertiser-Tribune
July 7, 14, and 24, 2007

The Tiffin Advertiser-Tribune reported on a case in which Adam E. Carr filed suit on behalf of the Allen Eiry Senior Center, a charity, against its landlords.  The landlords had purchased the building from the original landlord.  The new landlords wanted to significantly increase the rent beyond what the lease required the senior center to pay.  The senior center refused to agree to pay increased rent.  According to the suit papers, the landlords then engaged in a pattern of escalating harassment designed to drive the senior center out of the building.  The alleged harassment included a denial of central air conditioning to the senior center.  Adam E. Carr successfully petitioned the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas to issue a temporary restraining order, followed by a preliminary injunction, requiring the senior center's landlords to immediately restore and maintain the central air conditioning. 

RECENT VERDICTS

David I. Griffin v. Kimberly A. Urick

Trumbull C.P. No. 2007 CV 00517
Verdict Date:  April 15, 2008
Defense Counsel:  Adam E. Carr

A motorcycle operator claimed to have sustained significant injuries including the degloving of his left heel and foot and fractures of the left heel, left foot, and right hip.  The motorcyclist had a prosthetic hip installed and he continues to have ongoing complaints.  There is an anticipated need for future surgery on his foot.  He walks with an obvious limp. He produced $138,357.25 in medical bills and over six hundred pages of medical records.  He also claimed to have lost over $22,000 in commissioned wages as a bail bondsman.  The motorcyclist claimed he tried to go back to work twice after the accident but was physically unable to do the job.  He did return to work permanently nearly two years after the accident.

The driver of a Ford Explorer was alleged to have signaled and begun to make a left turn at an intersection.  She then turned her mind and turned right, according to the motorcyclist.  He was attempting to pass her on the right.  Photographs and measurements of the scene indicated that the lane was seventeen feet wide.  This was wide enough for another Ford Explorer to have passed her on the right if she had been making a left turn.

The motorcyclist was taken from the scene of the accident to the closest hospital.  Later that evening, the driver of the Explorer stopped by a bar owned by the motorcyclist's father.  She had known the motorcyclist previously.  Two witnesses from the bar testified that she admitted she was at fault for having her left turn signal on.  On cross-examination by defense counsel Adam E. Carr, the witnesses disagreed on whether she stopped by to ask for money or to check on the motorcyclist's condition.

At trial the driver of the Explorer denied ever having signaled or attempted any left turn.  She admitted having gone to the bar but denied having admitted fault.  Two other witnesses located by the defense testified that they had been present at the scene of the accident.  They did not see the Explorer exhibit any turn signal, either left or right.  They saw the motorcyclist attempt to pass the Explorer on the right while the Explorer was making a right turn.  They testified that the motorcyclist actually drove onto the grass in an attempt to pass the Explorer.

The motorcyclist testified that he had gone to a funeral earlier that day.  He and many other motorcyclists had ridden in a procession from the funeral home to the grave site.  From the grave, they had gone to the home of the decedent, where a wake had been held.  After the wake, the motorcyclist traveled to the scene of the accident.  On cross-examination by defense counsel Adam E. Carr, the motorcyclist was unable to recall the name of the decedent, the name of the funeral home, or the exact location of the decedent’s home where the motorcyclist had gone for the wake.  There was substantial evidence of alcohol consumption by the motorcyclist that day but the motorcyclist had passed a blood alcohol test at the hospital several hours after the accident.  As a result, the judge did not permit the jury to hear any evidence relating to alcohol.  The defendant received a unanimous jury verdict so she did not need to appeal this ruling.

Elaine M. Krauss v. Lois E. Stitt, Administratrix of the Estate of Keith M. Stitt, deceased

Trumbull C.P. No. 2004 CV 00987
Verdict Date:  September 25, 2007
Defense Counsel:  Adam E. Carr

A motorcycle passenger suffered a highly unstable fracture of the distal left tibia and fibula (the two lower leg bones) in a collision with a deer.  The plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon surgically inserted a rod through the tibia and secured it in place with screws to help repair the fracture.  The plaintiff was unable to work at all for four and a half months after the accident and she gradually returned to work over the following two months.  She continues to have difficulty descending stairs.  The rod and screws will remain in her leg permanently.

Before the accident, the operator and the passenger had observed a herd of deer near the side of the road.  One of the deer crossed the road and the motorcycle operator slowed down in response.  A second deer jumped out and hit the motorcycle.  The motorcycle passenger contended that the motorcycle operator should have come to a full stop after the first deer crossed the road.  The passenger was the motorcycle operator’s fiancée.  The motorcycle operator died a short while after the accident of injuries sustained in the accident. The motorcycle passenger sued the driver's estate, claiming he was negligent.

Adam E. Carr successfully petitioned the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas to award summary judgment in favor of the driver's estate on the grounds that the driver had done nothing wrong.  The court of appeals determined that the common pleas judge should have let a jury decide the outcome of the case.  At trial, Adam E. Carr received a unanimous jury verdict in favor of the driver's estate.

RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS

Gerald Bauer v. Integon Genl. Ins. Co.
Cuyahoga App. No. 85981, 2005-Ohio-6363
Defense Counsel:  Adam E. Carr

Adam E. Carr recently obtained a decision from the Eighth District Court of Appeals that an insurer could validly deny underinsured motorist coverage once the insurer had already paid its aggregate limit of liability coverage under the same policy, even if the insured had not received any payment under that coverage.

The insured wife was driving the family car, and she made a left turn in front of another driver.  Her husband and daughter claimed to have suffered injuries as the result of the wife’s negligence.  The wife’s own insurer, Integon, paid $12,500 each to the husband and daughter.  The $25,000 paid represented Integon’s aggregate limit of liability coverage.

All three insureds then filed suit against two other drivers insured by Progressive and State Farm.  Those insurers also paid the limits of their liability insurance coverage.  The Bauers received total liability insurance proceeds of $100,000 among the three insurers.  However, the bulk of the funds went to the daughter.  The insured wife herself apparently only received a total of $6,250.

In Ohio, underinsured motorist coverage is a “gap” coverage.  Thus, the insured wife argued that Ohio law entitled her to make an underinsured motorist claim for the difference between her $12,500 per person limit of uninsured motorist coverage and the $6,250 she received from the other alleged negligent drivers.  See Littrell v. Wigglesworth, 91 Ohio St.2d 425, 2001-Ohio-87, 746 N.E.2d 1077.

The insured wife also argued that Integon’s exclusion was an illegal “no double dip” exclusion.  The insureds paid separate premiums for liability and underinsured motorist coverage and were entitled to both coverages.  See Berrios v. State Farm Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 109, 2002-Ohio-7115, 781 N.E.2d 149; Shearer v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 1, 371 N.E.2d 210.

Integon argued that underinsured motorist coverage has two limits— an individual limit and an aggregate limit.  If no liability insurance coverage had been available to the insureds, Integon would have paid $25,000 in uninsured motorist coverage.  Because Integon had already paid the $25,000 under the liability coverage, it owed nothing further.  This was consistent with the purpose of underinsured motorist coverage, which was to put the insured in the same position as if there had been no liability insurance coverage available.  See R.C. 3937.18.

The trial court and the court of appeals both agreed with this argument.

SELECTED REPORTED CASES

• In re Uninsured & Underinsured Motorist Coverage Cases (Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. Wagner and Vicars v. McCray), 100 Ohio St.3d 302, 2003-Ohio-5888, 798 N.E.2d 1077
• Ohayon v. Safeco, 91 Ohio St.3d 474, 2001-Ohio-100, 747 N.E.2d 206
• Cappara v. Schibley, 85 Ohio St.3d 403, 1999-Ohio-278, 709 N.E.2d 117
• Aber v. Zurz, 175 Ohio App.3d 385, 2008-Ohio-778, 887 N.E.2d 381
• Bauer v. Integon Genl. Ins. Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 85981, 2005-Ohio-6363
• Adkins v. Ferguson, Ashland App. No. 02 CA 34, 2003-Ohio-403
• Adkins v. Hansen, Ashland App. No. 01COA01437, 2002-Ohio-2676
• Carroll v. Allstate Ins. Co., 148 Ohio App.3d 413, 2002-Ohio-3074, 773 N.E.2d 1061
• Bautista v. Kolis, 142 Ohio App.3d 169, 2001-Ohio-3159, 754 N.E.2d 820
• Musaelyants v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001), 145 Ohio App.3d 251, 762 N.E.2d 459 
• Boehm v. Butcher, 144 Ohio Misc.2d 90, 2007-Ohio-6576, 879 N.E.2d 268