Legal Opinion
Neal-Pettit v. Lahman
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 4, 2010No. 2009-0325PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLanzinger, J.
{¶ 1} We accepted this discretionary appeal to determine whether an insurer must pay an attorney-fee award on behalf of its insured under her insurance policy and whether payment of attorney fees awarded solely as a result of punitive damages violates the public policy of Ohio. After reviewing the policy, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the policy does cover attorney-fee awards and that public policy does not prevent such coverage.
Facts
{¶ 2} Appellee, Kimberly Neal-Pettit, filed suit against Linda Lahman for compensatory and punitive damages due to personal…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- King v. Nationwide InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Zoppo v. Homestead InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. S.R.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
- Gearing v. Nationwide InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Wedge Products, Inc. v. Hartford Equity Sales Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Pelletier v. Campbell (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
- Gilson v. Am. Inst. of Alternative MedicineOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
- Miller v. GrimsleyOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ironics, Inc. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2022
- Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess School Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2017
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.