Opinion

Mulvey v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co.

  • 98 N.E.3d 926
  • 2017 Ohio 7902
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Sep 28, 2017
Status
Published
Author
Horton
On the bench
Dorrian, Horton
Cited by
8 cases

The opinion

HORTON, J., dissenting.

{¶ 26} I respectfully dissent. I simply disagree with the majority's analysis and believe the trial court was spot on in its analysis and conclusions. This is a relatively simple case. If Mulvey was interested in receiving severance from GuideOne, pursuant to the posting, he was required to qualify as an employee (which he did), sign a release (which he did not), and continue working (which he did). Mulvey received compensation for the work he performed. Any additional compensation via severance required additional consideration, i.e., signing a release. He failed to sign a release and therefore should be precluded from receiving the benefits of severance as he

provided no additional consideration. Thus, as a matter of law, I would affirm the trial court on both assignments of error.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.