 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sarka v. Love12/1/2005
good faith effort to settle requires a review of the settlement efforts made by a party's insurance carrier(s). 25 Ohio St. 3d at 166-167, 25 Ohio B. Rep. at 209, 495 N.E.2d at 921. Most of the information regarding the insurer's efforts will be contained in the claims file. In this regard, Peyko clearly recognizes that a post-trial proceeding for prejudgment interest is amenable to the general discovery process established by the Civil Rules. * * *"
{ } We therefore find that the trial court did not err in denying AIU's motion for a protective order, and further find that any potential disclosure of so-called privileged documents will be protected by the court's in camera review.
{ } We therefore affirm the decision of the trial court and return this case to the trial court to proceed with the in camera inspection of the requested documents, followed by a hearing to determine prejudgment interest.
It is ordered that appellee shall recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., And COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR
APPENDIX A
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
"I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING AIU INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SET-OFF AND FOR A REDUCTION IN JUDGMENT.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING AIU INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING AIU'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND IN ORDERING PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS SUBJECT TO WORK PRODUCT IMMUNITY."
|