Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Metz v. American Elec. Power Co., Inc., 06ap-1161 (6-29-2007)
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided June 29, 2007No. 06AP-1161, 06AP-1166Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBrown, J.
BRYANT, J., writing separately.
{¶ 61} Being unable to agree with the lead opinion, I write sepatately.
{¶ 62} Appellants' complaint asserts both a fraud claim, as well as a quasi-contract claim premised on bad faith. Because they are separate claims, I address fraud separately from bad faith. To prevail on their fraud claim, appellants must prove appellees knowingly made a false and material representation with intent to induce reliance. Williams v.Aetna Fin. Co. (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 464. In that context, appellants claim AEP falsely represented AEP's profits and bonuses in an attempt to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Williams v. Aetna Finance Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
- Kalain v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Hamilton Insurance Services, Inc. v. Nationwide InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Ullmann v. MayOhio Supreme Court · 1947
- Tibbs v. National Homes Construction Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1977
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.