Crawford v. Am. Family Ins. Co.

Citations

• 212 N.E.3d 421
• 2023 Ohio 1069

Syllabus

In this bad faith action based on an uninsured motorists' claim, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in appellee-insurer's favor. The court incorrectly established a blanket rule that insured claimants are required, as a matter of law, to provide expert testimony in bad faith cases. There is no basis for imposing such a standard as a matter of law, and the circumstances of each case should be considered. Furthermore, even if an expert were needed, the deposition of appellee's claims adjuster provided sufficient evidence of standards and what conduct would be required to avoid a bad faith claim. Finally, while appellee contends that the judgment should be affirmed on alternate grounds, the record clearly indicates that the trial court failed to consider evidentiary materials that were submitted. Under these circumstances, we decline to conduct a de novo review of an alternate argument. Judgment reversed and remanded.