On April 30, 2026, the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Civ.R. 60(B) relief from a summary judgment originally granted in favor of CRUG’s client, State Farm, after the parties had completed the appraisal process required in the policy to resolve a dispute over valuation of stolen property.  The Court of Appeals held that denial of Civ.R. 60(B) relief from judgment was proper because the insured’s arguments challenging the appraisal process, the neutrality and alleged improper influence of the umpire, the valuation methodology, and whether the appraisal was binding, were all attacks upon the merits of the the underlying summary judgment order, which the insured had not timely appealed, and Civ.R. 60(B) cannot be used as a substitute for a direct appeal.

CRUG Partner, Greg Collins represented State Farm in the trial court proceedings and successfully obtained the summary judgment order.  CRUG Partner, Kurt Anderson defended State Farm in the appellate briefings and oral argument.

The Eighth District’s decision can be found at Alexandria Kung v. State Farm, 2026-Ohio-1565.

Gregory H. Collins (L) Kurt D. Anderson (R)

CRUG Partner, Matt Duffy recently secured a total victory for a high school coach in a case involving a student athlete injured at a community hot air balloon festival in Dales v Defiance County, et al.

The Plaintiff, a talented multi-sport athlete, was injured while assisting with hot-air balloon disassembly after dark as part of a volunteer activity related to his school.  He was injured when he stepped in a hole in the dark adversely affecting his athletic hopes.  He sued his school, some of its employees, the hot-air balloon company and a local charity for his injuries.  The outcome of the case turned on three critical defense doctrines:

1️⃣ Primary Assumption of Risk: The inherent risks associated with the activity. 2️⃣ Open and Obvious: Hazards that are discernible to any reasonable person. 3️⃣ The “Step in the Dark” Doctrine: A person who intentionally steps into total darkness without knowledge of the hazards does so at their own peril.

By focusing on these defenses, Matt and the other defense counsel secured Summary Judgment for all defendants.

Proud to have represented my client through his homeowners’ policy and to see a final appealable order bringing this matter to a close.

Matt Duffy, Partner, Cleveland Office

We are proud to announce that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio recently granted summary judgment in favor of our client, United Specialty Insurance Company (USIC).

The Case at a Glance: Following a catastrophic 2019 trucking accident, a settlement was reached by two insurers without ever notifying USIC or seeking their consent yet later sought USIC’s “contribution” for the settlement.  

Contribution Denied: The Court found that USIC suffered “plain prejudice” because notice was only provided after the settlement was finalized.  The Court rejected arguments that USIC’s involvement wouldn’t have changed the outcome, calling those claims “merely speculative.”

The Bottom Line:  Notice and consent provisions matter—especially for excess carriers. Generally, you cannot settle a case without notice or or consent from an insurer and then ask an insurer to pay the bill afterward.

Congratulations to CRUG Partner Sunny Horacek who drafted the key portions of the motion and presented the winning oral argument!

Read the full citation: National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. TT Club Mutual Insurance Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-3696 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2026).

A recent ruling from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in McFarland v. Diccucio (Case No. 23-CV-001700) serves as a critical reminder for law firms and practitioners regarding insurance applications and warranties.