# Mulvey v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co.

> Ohio Court of Appeals · September 28, 2017 · 98 N.E.3d 926

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9878637

## Case

- **Full name:** Thomas J. MULVEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUIDEONE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** September 28, 2017
- **Citations:** 98 N.E.3d 926; 2017 Ohio 7902
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Horton
- **Judges:** Dorrian, Horton
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9878637

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9878637. Public record. Not legal advice.