Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

August 15, 2006

You learn something new every day.  At least, I did on Saturday morning.  I was skimming through some recent cases, looking for ideas for the blog -- and that I was spending Saturday morning reading cases should indicate to you that the Excite-o-Meter in my life is trending substantially below that of Paris Hilton, or indeed of most vertebrates -- when I came across this case, Allstate v. Dolman.  The fact pattern -- husband fools around with teen-aged baby sitter -- is mildly interesting, if not exactly uncommon.

At which point the plot line veers from Lifetime Movie Network into LA Law:  baby sitter's parents sue husband, and also husband's wife; their theory against the latter was that she knew her husband was a skank -- he'd been charged with fondling his niece's breasts in the state they'd lived in before moving to Ohio -- and had failed to warn anyone or monitor his conduct.  This is where it picks up some interest from the legal standpoint:  while the Ohio Supreme Court has held that sexual molestation is not covered by homeowner's insurance, it has held that allowing coverage for the non-molester, under a failure to supervise or failure to warn theory, is permissible. 

The Dolman case even has some interest from a procedural angle:  The trial court, in granting summary judgment, relied on a provision of the policy that Allstate hadn't argued, or even cited.  Despite Allstate's claim that the appellate court could consider that provision because, by attaching the whole policy to its motion, Allstate had implicitly argued it, the Court wasn't buying.  Citing case law which says that a movant must "specifically delineate" its basis for summary judgment in order to give the other side a "meaningful opportunity to respond," the Court reversed.

So this is where it gets weird.  I'm getting to the end of the opinion, slightly diverted by a pleasant reverie about the picture of Christie Brinkley that appears in the link at the end of the first paragraph, when I come to this line:  "In their second assignment of error, the Does argue that if this case is remanded, Allstate is precluded from raising the Joint Obligations Clause issue in accordance with the 'mend the hold' doctrine."

Huh?  "'Mend the hold' doctrine"?  I'd never heard of it, and apparently neither have a lot of other people:  according to my buddy Lexis, the words "mend" and "hold" appear in the same sentence exactly twice in the entire history of Ohio case law, and one of them is the Dolman case; the other is a 1936 case out of Ottawa County about a mechanics lien.

Well, I did some more checking (our motto here at The Briefcase:  We Google so you don't have to), and it turns out there is such a doctrine, apparently well-established in insurance law.  There's a good discussion of it, along with the doctrines of waiver and estoppel as applied in insurance contract situations, on this blog, but the short version is that if the insurance company denies coverage for Reason A, they can't go in and argue Reason B once litigation begins.

So maybe you learned something today, too.  About insurance law, or summary judgment procedure, or insurance coverage for sexual molesters.  Or, if nothing else, about what Idiot Level you'd have to reach to fool around if you were married to Christie Brinkley.

Search

Recent Entries

  • June 23, 2017
    Crime and the First Amendment
    Facebook and sex offenders, and encouraging someone to kill himself
  • June 20, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    I come a cropper, plus inventory searches and mandatory probation
  • June 19, 2017
    Case Update - SCOTUS
    What's coming up in the US Supreme Court in the next two weeks
  • June 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    After weeks in the desert, we come upon an oasis of defense wins
  • June 7, 2017
    A switch in time
    Why what the Supreme Court did in Aalim II and Gonzales II is a bad thing
  • June 6, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A turnabout on prior calculation and design, and harmless error in all its manifestations
  • June 5, 2017
    Case Update
    A death penalty case, fourteen years after the crime, and we're just getting started. And two appellate decisions on search and seizure.
  • May 31, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    "What's a law enforcement accountability activist?" asked someone never, but the answer is here. Plus, cell phone experts, joinder, and the fading glory that was State v. Hand.
  • May 30, 2017
    Case Update
    One searches SCOTUSblog in vain for decisions which would be of interest to the uncounted hordes of this blog's regular readers; one of the Court's opinions last week deals with the Hague Service Convention's rules on international service by mail,...
  • May 25, 2017
    "Clarifying" post-release controls
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Grimes