Firm News

Once again, forecasts in the Midwest are calling for plunging temperatures that frequently result in pipe freeze claims.

Located in frigid Ohio, RMI has years of subrogation experience on freeze failures and helping insurers recover on losses occurring during what our firm refers to as “pipe freeze season.”

Our property division includes counsel who have years of experience in freeze failures, one with an engineering degree and concentration in fluid dynamics.  A support staff member also is an engineering graduate.

The last 2021 and 2022 winter seasons saw RMI recover $1,260,000.00 on freeze claims, and we are again prepared to help insurers weather the predicted storms.  Freeze failures involve complex issues. RMI has a proven track record of immediate response, engaging the proper experts in cold weather related losses and recoveries. Freeze failures encompass sprinkler system installation, maintenance by service companies, construction errors, and faulty plumbing standards set forth in NFPA 13 (Standard for Installation of Sprinkler Systems), and NFPA 25 – Inspection Testing and Maintenance of Fire Protection Systems.

Subrogation Checklist & Tips:

Attorneys Amanda Martanovic and Dustin Smith have been named as new shareholders at Roberts, Matejczyk & Ita (RMI).  

Attorney Amanda Martanovic

Attorney Amanda Martanovic has led the auto subrogation division at RMI for the past several years.  

FIRE, WATER AND COLLAPSE CASES WITH IMMEDIATE SITE VISITS LEAD TO LARGE LOSS 2022 RECOVERIES

As RMI’s property division enters the 2022 home stretch, the firm has resolved by settlement a series of large loss recoveries on fire, explosion, water loss and collapse cases. Taken together the recoveries have resulted in millions of dollars in recoveries for clients.

The property division of RMI not only contains seasoned and respected subrogation counsel, but two members of the property division, including counsel and a recent addition to the support staff, are engineering graduates of the Ohio State University. 2022 highlights to date:

2022 Explosion Recoveries

RMI is pleased to announce that Jason Pickell has joined the firm. Attorney Pickell, licensed in both Ohio and Indiana, is the sixth attorney to join the firm’s dedicated subrogation practice.

 “Jason is a natural fit for RMI, with a background in subrogation and experience working at an insurer. It is an added benefit given his licensing in two states,” noted RMI managing partner Glenna Roberts.

“He has excellent communication skills, and our firm has been impressed with the rapport he establishes with our client’s insureds in obtaining initial information on a loss, and explaining the subrogation process,” noted Roberts.

 Jason hit the ground running at RMI working property files in both Indiana and Ohio. He has attended multiple scene exams with RMI attorneys since joining the firm. He also has past experience working automobile subrogation assignments at an Indiana law firm. At RMI, Jason will be working both property and automobile assignments.

Once again, the Midwest is gripped with plummeting temperatures and resulting claims from pipe freeze losses.  

The Ohio Supreme Court this summer modified its Rules of Civil Procedure as it relates to discovery practice. Ohio Civil Rule 26 was overhauled to more closely track the federal rule, with some special nuances, and requires more uniformity among the 88 counties and their courts.

Although many of the local rule requirements remain in effect, here are some changes now applicable state wide to all cases filed in Ohio:

Initial Disclosures and Discovery Plan. The new rules impose on the parties the affirmative duty to make “initial disclosures” quickly, no later than the first pretrial or case management conference. Unless privileged or protected from disclosure, the requirement is to disclose without a discovery request the following:

►The name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information – along with the subjects of that information – that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses.

►A copy of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses.

During the last five months, RMI recovered $614,974.00 on three spontaneous combustion fires, each in a different part of Ohio, but all involving the same product and fact patterns.

All three fires were initially believed to be related to other causes, but later determined to be the result of improper use of staining products.

Two of the losses were during the final phase of construction projects.  All three cases involved Minwax brand staining products.  In all instances the manufacturer’s warning and instructions as to proper use and rag disposal were not followed.

The first recovery involved a $204,974.00 settlement in eastern Ohio (Trumbull County) involving an extensive office remodeling project.  The settlement was close to the total recoverable loss.  Initially, the fire was believed to be related to an electric heater in the origin area.  A review of burn patterns, systematic ruling out of an electrical failure, and the evidence of staining being accomplished in another area of the building shifted the focus.

March 16, 2020

In a unanimous decision, the Ohio 10^th Appellate District has upheld a $651,335.00 jury verdict in favor of a subrogated insurer and its insured. The case, COMTEX, et al. v. Turner / PSC Metals was tried in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, and argued in the appellate court by RMI Attorneys Glenna Roberts and Dustin Smith.

The February 20, 2020 ruling upheld a verdict that had been challenged in post-trial motions and then on appeal since the verdict was rendered back in 2017. The original verdict after a four day trial involved a commercial subrogation claim asserting a large nationwide metal recycling corporation had wrongfully converted product belonging to the insured.

The appellate court ruled that the trial judge properly decided a duty to mitigate instruction was inapplicable under the facts of the case. The opinion noted “the duty to mitigate arises only where the injured party has knowledge that it has sustained damages.” The court also held that under Ohio law, contributory fault is not available as an affirmative defense in a conversion case. The appellate court further ruled the trial court did not err in denying the defense motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.

# # # 

Event attended by over 300 Ohio fire fighters, public investigators, members of the State Fire Marshal’s Office and private investigators.

RMI Attorneys Glenna Roberts and David Matejczyk were honored to be guest presenters at the IAAI Northern Ohio Chapter Annual Seminar on fire investigations held on February 23 at Ashland University.

The RMI portion of the seminar addressed coordination issues involved between public and private investigations. Topics covered included control and transfer of the scene from the public investigator, safety considerations, overhaul as it impacts cause and origin determination, sharing of information and resources, forensic exams and fire causation trends in Ohio. The program included excellent discussion, interaction and sharing of ideas among the attendees.

 # # #

INVITATION...

RMI is pleased to have been asked to again participate and co-sponsor the 2019 information packed fire investigation and insurance adjuster/subrogation LIVE BURN seminar “Burn it – to Learn it!”

The live burn is being held Friday, June 7, 2019, 9:30 am at the Norwich Township Fire Department, 5181 Northwest Parkway in Hilliard, Ohio.

Your company's adjusters, subrogation units, managers and in-house counsel are invited to attend "Burn it – to Learn it!" Please feel free to forward this to others in your organization who might desire to attend.

RMI was pleased to participate and co-sponsor “Burn it – to Learn it” - a day long information packed fire investigation and insurance subrogation/adjuster seminar.

The event featured a morning classroom program addressing legal and insurance issues.  The program was held at the Norwich Township and Fire Department state-of-the-art training facility. A live burn was held in the afternoon at the adjacent Franklin County Fairgrounds. The program was attended by approximatey150 representatives of the insurance industry (adjusters, subrogation units and in-house counsel), agents, property managers and local fire officials.

The classroom portion featured insurance issues including proper and compliant notice, roles and duties of the front line adjuster & subrogation unit, scene preservation, avoidance of bad faith claims, impacted third parties, losses involving injuries and proper damage documentation.

RMI partner David Matejczyk was a presenter on the insurance and legal issues from a fire loss.

Failure to Properly Respond Per Ohio Civil Rules May be Fatal to Your Subrogation Claim

In Ohio, court documents may arrive in several different forms. The court document or pleading most likely to be seen first would be a “Summons and Complaint” naming a plan or TPA (usually improperly named) as a defendant, which is very common in Ohio. In fact, some courts require the subrogated interest(s) such as a health plan or workers comp lien to be added as a party where not originally named. The document you receive may be an initial complaint alleging injury or an amended complaint by which the lien interest is being added to the already ongoing litigation. 

Under Ohio law, a defendant has only 28 days from the date the summons and complaint or amended complaint are first received in which to answer. The 28 days begins running as soon as the party or its agent (i.e., statutory agent, TPA, any office address, etc.) receives the suit papers. We all know this time can pass all too quickly during the press of ordinary business, while the court document is first associated with a particular member (or subscriber’s relative) and eventually makes its way to the appropriate handler for the first time.

A timely phone call to Ohio outside counsel, even with limited information, can help stave off the potentially bad consequences of a late response. It should be emphasized here that it is not sufficient at this point under either the Ohio civil rules or practical experience for the file handler to simply call or write the plaintiff’s attorney – the simple fact is that you need to get right with the court through counsel at the peril of your subrogated interest.