# Furr v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

> Ohio Court of Appeals · June 26, 1998 · 128 Ohio App. 3d 607

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3759035

## Case

- **Full name:** FURR Et Al., Appellees, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Et Al.; Milwaukee Guardian Insurance Company, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 26, 1998
- **Citations:** 128 Ohio App. 3d 607; 716 N.E.2d 250
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Glasser
- **Judges:** Knepper, Sherck, Glasser
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3759035

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[c]ompensatory damages arising from a bad-faith insurance claim may include attorney’s fees.”

## Opinion text

Glasser, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent in part from the opinion of the majority in finding that appellant’s second assignment of error is not well taken.
The second assignment of error alleges that the trial court utilized the incorrect standard as to whether Milwaukee breached its duty to act in good faith. Levin was permitted to testify in regard to the appropriate time frame for
*632
handling insurance claims, specifically referring to Ohio Adm. Code 3901-1-54. Additionally, the trial court submitted an instruction to the jury based on the Ohio Administrative Code. The majority acknowledges that this is an incorrect instruction but discounts its effect, since the jury was not instructed that a violation of the Ohio Administrative Code would
per se
amount to a breach of good faith. I disagree. Although the trial court may not have specifically used the term
per se,
the prejudicial effect on the jury would still be significant. The testimony of Levin and the erroneous instruction created a misleading and prejudicial effect on the jury.
I would, therefore, find that plain error occurred, reverse the trial court’s determination of bad faith, and order a new trial in this matter.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3759035. Public record. Not legal advice.