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 Supreme Court: Binding Appraisal Awards May Be Challenged Only for Fraud or Manifest Mistake Pleaded with Particularity; Bad Faith Claim Fails
November 3, 2026
The insured (One Church) sustained windstorm damage to its property and submitted a claim to Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company (its property insurer). The parties disagreed as to the scope and amount of necessary repairs. The parties invoked the policy’s binding appraisal clause to resolve the dispute. The appraisal process was completed, and a binding award was issued. Brotherhood Mutual paid the appraisal award, and One Church accepted the payment. Several months later, contractors at One Church discovered "hidden damage" to the roof which had not been identified or addressed during the appraisal process. One Church demanded Church Mutual make an additional payment of approximately $206,000 for the new repairs. Brotherhood Mutual refused on the basis of the completed appraisal. One Church then filed suit, asserting claims for breach of contract and bad faith. The issue in the case were the standard by which a party is able to set aside or reopen a contractually binding insurance appraisal award in Ohio. A secondary issue was whether the discovery of previously undiscovered property damage after the conclusion of a binding appraisal constitute a "manifest mistake" sufficient to invalidate the award (and if so, the level of specificity is required under Ohio Civil Rule 9(B) when a party alleges fraud or mistake to overturn an appraisal). The Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in favor of Brotherhood Mutual – reversing the court of appeals and reinstating the trial court's dismissal of the lawsuit. The Court held that contractually agreed-upon appraisal awards are highly favored and final. They cannot be set aside or reopened unless a party proves fraud, partiality, or a "manifest mistake." As to the definition of “manifest mistake,” the Court clarified that a manifest mistake must be an obvious, clerical, or mathematical error evident on the face of the award (e.g., an incorrect calculation). The mere fact that additional, hidden property damage was discovered after the appraisal process does not qualify as a manifest mistake. The Court further emphasized that any allegation of fraud or mistake must be pled with particularity under Ohio Civil Rule 9(B), and One Church failed to meet that high standard. The decision’s impact on bad faith claims in Ohio is that the Court held an insured is unable to assert a bad faith claim on the basis that the insurer relies on an appraisal award. Since the award is valid and binding, the insurer’s reliance on the award cannot constitute a breach of contract. As a result, the dependent claim for insurance bad faith was also properly dismissed.
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.
News
106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America
August 20, 2026
98 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America
August 20, 2025
