Legal Opinion

Strief v. City of Cincinnati

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 1995No. 93-2507PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

The issue presented is whether the word “benefits” as used in R.C. 2744.05(B) includes monies advanced to an injured party by a union benefit plan that must be reimbursed from a subsequent judgment pursuant to a *319subrogation agreement between the injured party and the plan. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

The collateral source setoff provision of R.C. 2744.05(B) states:

“If a claimant receives or is entitled to receive benefits for injuries or loss allegedly incurred from a policy or policies of insurance or any other source, the benefits shall be disclosed to the court, and the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Menefee v. Queen City MetroOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Vogel v. WellsOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Rogers v. City of YoungstownOhio Supreme Court · 1991

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Community Ins. Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Hall v. City of ColumbusDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1998
  3. Strief v. CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Community Insurance v. Ohio Department of TransportationOhio Supreme Court · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API