Dave is an experienced civil litigator and trial lawyer, handling a wide range of claims over the course of his career. His practice includes defending insurance company clients in disputes with insureds, other insurers, and claimants. Those cases involve questions about whether coverage is available for a claim, the value of the claim, the priority of multiple coverages, and whether the insurer acted in bad faith in its handling of the claim.
Dave also defends clients in general liability cases, in which a party claims to have suffered bodily injury, property damage, etc., as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of another – including complex bodily injury cases. He has also handled cases in federal court defending a variety of claims asserted against cities, counties, and municipalities. Other areas of his practice include transportation law, environmental litigation, workplace injury claims, property disputes, grade crossing accident cases, interactions with local municipalities, medical malpractice cases - defending doctors and other health care providers, as well as a variety of commercial litigation involving disputes between businesses.
As managing attorney of the Cincinnati office, Dave oversees the day-to-day operations for the entire office, ensuring that client matters are handled promptly, professionally and effectively.
Dave received his juris doctor from Salmon P. Chase College of Law in 1999, after completing his undergraduate work at Hanover College in 1995. He is admitted in both state and federal courts in the state of Ohio and Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Dave is married with two sons. He is active in his community and currently serves on the Executive Board of Oak Hills Youth Athletics.
Results
Successful Defense of Appeal in the Kentucky Court of Appeals
We successfully defended an appeal of summary judgment granted in favor of our insurance company client in the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The court agreed our client was entitled to challenge liability for the plaintiff’s claim and defend its insured, despite the requirements of the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act.
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment for Nail Salon
We successfully defended an appeal of a trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of a nail salon in a slip-and-fall case. The plaintiff alleged she fell in an untreated wet area inside the salon on a rainy day. However, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence about the source of the “wet area,” or that the salon had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet area prior to the plaintiff’s fall. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the salon and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Ohio Court Clarifies That No Bad‑Faith Claim Exists Without a Breach of the Policy
July 21, 2026
BBI is a freight brokerage logistics company that arranged transport of frozen chicken for its client – Bird in Hand Farms, Inc. in February 2021. BBI arranged for a transport company – GRS – to deliver the chicken to Bird in Hand. There was a winter storm while the delivery was being transported by GRS. The GRS driver’s trailer was parked on a residential street in Monroe, Louisiana for four days due to the winter storm. During that time, someone cut the trailer seal and stole 15-20 pounds of chicken. Bird in Hand then rejected the entire load upon delivery. BBI sued GRS and Travelers – its insurer. Travelers had issued a policy to BBI covering “damages … for direct physical loss of or damage to covered property.” BBI averred that Travelers’ insurance policy included coverage for the loss of and/or damage to the shipment of frozen chicken, and claimed that Travelers breached the policy by not providing full payment for BBI's loss. BBI also contended that Travelers acted in bad faith in investigating and evaluating BBI's insurance claim and ultimately denying BBI full coverage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment that the frozen chicken was not covered property under the Travelers policy. Accordingly the Court of Appeals concluded that Travelers did not breach its policy with BBI. The court then turned to BBI’s bad faith claim. BBI argued genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on its claim for bad faith against Travelers, but the trial court concluded that BBI failed to identify any such issues. In reviewing the grant of summary judgment in favor of Travelers, the Court of Appeals held that, if an insurer does not breach the insurance policy when denying coverage, then an insured cannot maintain a claim for bad faith, citing Wash. v. Evans, 2021-Ohio-587, ¶ 34, 168 N.E.3d 638 (10th Dist.). Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of Travelers on the bad faith claim. Plaintiff-insureds in Ohio often attempt to argue that a bad faith claim may be pursued irrespective of whether there was an actual breach of the insurance contract. While there is very little authority to support such a position, the argument is not always clear-cut. However, the BBI Logistics decision stands as helpful authority that insurers may utilize in countering such an argument by their insureds.
Case Law Alerts
Ohio Supreme Court Rules Trial Courts Must Apply Specific Standards Before Ordering Disclosure of Privileged Claims Files
April 1, 2026
In an insurance bad faith action, a trial court may order production of an insurer’s claims file documents that are asserted to be protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine without first complying with R.C. 2317.02(A)(2) and Civ.R. 26(B)(4). The plaintiffs, the Eddys, were injured in a 2020 automobile accident and pursued underinsured motorist benefits from their insurer, Farmers. After litigation over coverage was resolved and Farmers paid the policy limits, the Eddys filed a separate bad faith lawsuit, alleging Farmers unreasonably delayed settlement. During discovery, the trial court ordered Farmers to produce its entire claims file, including attorney communications and litigation related materials, without conducting an in-camera review. The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on the Ohio Supreme Court’s prior decision in Boone v. Vanliner Ins. Co. (2001), which had allowed discovery of certain pre-denial claims file materials in bad faith cases. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and held Boone had been superseded by statute. Specifically, the court held that discovery of attorney-client communications and work product materials in insurer bad faith cases was governed by R.C. § 2317.02(A)(2) and Civ.R. 26(B)(4), both of which require specific threshold showings and judicial review. Specifically, the court held that privileged insurer-attorney communications may be disclosed only after: the insured makes a prima facie showing of bad faith, and the trial court conducts an in camera inspection to determine whether the communications relate to an attorney’s aiding or furthering ongoing or future bad faith conduct. Importantly, the court ruled that allegations of bad faith alone are insufficient to overcome the privilege. The court further held that claims file materials prepared in anticipation of litigation are presumptively protected. Disclosure of those materials is only permitted upon a showing of good cause. This protection applies to information generated during or in anticipation of litigation, not merely to attorney testimony. Finally, the court held that in-camera review of the disputed documents is mandatory, i.e., a trial court must conduct an in-camera inspection of any disputed documents before ordering production of file materials when privilege or work product protection is asserted. The Eddy decision establishes stronger privilege protections for insurers in Ohio bad faith litigation. It eliminates reliance on the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Boone as a standalone basis for compelled production of claims file materials. Trial courts must now follow a structured, statute-based analysis before ordering disclosure, providing clearer guidance and greater predictability for discovery disputes in insurance bad faith cases.
