Legal Opinion

Motorists Mutual Insurance v. Brandenburg

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 10, 1995No. 93-2099PublishedCited by 55 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to appellants. For the reasons that follow, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

In Vance v. Roedersheimer (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 552, 556, 597 N.E.2d 153, 156, this court reaffirmed that in Ohio, an award of attorney fees must be predicated on statutory authorization or upon a finding of conduct which amounts to bad faith. This court has further determined that an insured may be entitled to attorney fees if an…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Motorists Mutual Insurance v. TrainorOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Preferred Risk Insurance v. GillOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Vance v. RoedersheimerOhio Supreme Court · 1992

3Cited by55 opinions

  1. DeRolph v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Landis v. Grange Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. St. Elizabeth Medical CenterOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  4. McConnell v. Hunt Sports EnterprisesOhio Court of Appeals · 1999
  5. Trustees of Indiana University v. BuxbaumMontana Supreme Court · 2003

50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API