Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Taylor v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided October 18, 2011No. 2010-1324Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partO’Donnell, J.
{¶ 58} The majority has determined that the liquidator is not bound by the arbitration clause contained in the engagement letter between Ernst & Young (“E & Y”) and American Chambers Life Insurance Company (“ACLIC”), because the liquidator does not stand in the shoes of the insolvent insurer and the claims asserted by the liquidator do not arise from the engagement letter.
{¶ 59} I concur in the majority’s opinion to the extent that the liquidator cannot be compelled to arbitrate the preference claim, but because I find that the liquidator stands in the shoes of the insolvent insurer and that…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Grava v. Parkman TownshipOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Webster v. FallSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Hays and Company, as Trustee for Monge Oil Corporation v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- Morris v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.