Legal Opinion

Costanzo v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 24, 2005No. C-040482PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Gorman, Judge.

{¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Dominic Costanzo and Ronald Kallam, the representatives of a class of independent-contractor insurance agents (collectively, the “agents”) under an exclusive contract with the defendants-appellees 1 (collectively, “Nationwide”), brought this declaratory-judgment class action 2 seeking a declaration of their rights in the ownership of the names and other information of Nationwide’s policyholders. Policyholder information is a valuable asset necessary for anticipating the future financial and insurance needs of Nationwide’s customers. Upon…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. DardenSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Doe v. ShafferOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Shifrin v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Mulch Manufacturing Inc. v. Advanced Polymer Solutions, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2013
  2. Buckeye Ranch, Inc. v. Northfield Insurance Co., Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division2005
  3. Cincinnati v. HarrisonOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. United States v. AciernoCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
  5. Beattie v. McCoyOhio Court of Appeals · 2018

12 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