Ray C. Freudiger

Practice Details

• Firm Information
  Position

  Shareholder

  Firm Name

  Marshall Dennehey
• Representative Cases & Transactions
  Cases

  Significant Representative Matters: Secured a decision from the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed a jury verdict in favor of our client, a housing authority in Ohio. After written Briefing
  oral argument, The Sixth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict in which the Appellant developer failed to prove that the Housing Authority discriminated against it (in violation of ADA
  FHA) by refusing to apply to HUD for VASH vouchers on behalf of the developer. The developer failed to prove it asked the housing authority for VASH on behalf of disabled persons, the request was not reasonable,
  the request was not necessary to enable disabled persons to enjoy their residents as non-disabled persons could.
  Secured dismissal on behalf of our client, an insurance agency in Hamilton County, Ohio. The plaintiff entity alleged that it suffered monetary damages by having to pay for claims made against its California employees. It alleged the agency failed to obtain Employment Practices Liability insurance for the company's California employees. In our Motion to Dismiss, Ray successfully argued that the 'economic loss doctrine' barred all claims against the agency.
  Successfully argued in Motion for Summary Judgment that Plaintiffs' claims were precluded by law because the general grant of immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.01 applied to them as a political subdivision
  no exception to immunity existed. Plaintiffs, a minor student
  parent, filed suit against the school district, school board, supervising teacher,
  principal alleging they were negligent when an afterschool science project (through the STEM program) caught fire causing burn injuries to the student. This included the exception that allows for negligence claims when there is a physical defect within or on the grounds of the entity. Further, the individual employees were also granted immunity because they were acting in their official capacities
  thus the same analysis afforded to the school applied to the individuals. The Judge ultimately granted our Motion
  dismissed Plaintiffs' claims.
  Obtained dismissal of an Ohio insurance agent who was sued by a condominium association. The allegation was that the insurance agent inappropriately
  unlawfully inserted himself into the insurance company's investigation
  tortuously interfered with the contract that resulted in the insurance company paying far less than the $1.3 million in damages alleged by the condominium association. After taking depositions of the individuals from the condominium association, the insurance company,
  defending his client's deposition, Ray convinced Plaintiff's attorney to dismiss all claims against the insurance agent.
  Obtained a summary judgement in a slip
  fall matter involving a liquor store, where the plaintiff slipped
  fractured her wrist upon stepping into the store on May 18, 2018. Heavy rain that evening allegedly caused water to be blown inside, which Field claimed as the cause of her fall. A wet floor sign was present, but she did not see it. We argued that the rainwater was an open
  obvious condition, which under Ohio law, they had no duty to warn against. The court, citing similar cases, agreed, noting that a property owner is generally not liable for injuries from open
  obvious conditions like rainwater. As Field failed to establish that the defendants breached their duty of care, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
  Obtained a summary judgement for a general contractor insured by our client. Plaintiff was working for his employer at a fracking site when he was struck in the head by a hose that came off an above-ground storage tank. He sustained serious
  permanent injuries. Plaintiff claimed the general contractor was liable for his injuries because it actively participated on the work site
  controlled the unsafe condition which caused his injuries. We moved for summary judgment arguing that the general contractor relinquished complete control over the site to a sub-contractor
  , thus, it had no control over any unsafe condition which caused the Plaintiff's injuries. The trial court agreed
  granted summary judgment in favor of our client.
  Secured significant victory in wrongful death commercial liability action at both trial
  appellate court levels in suit involving death of 18-year old woman who was struck
  killed by a commercial truck that was backing up an access ramp to deliver product at a grain receiving facility at the same time the woman traversed onto the ramp.
  Obtained a defense verdict in a jury trial where the case involved a rear end car accident. The plaintiff alleged serious
  permanent injury,
  while our client admitted fault, their contention was that the impact was of a minimal nature. The plaintiff incurred over $69,000 in medical expenses after the accident,
  made a settlement dem
  of $200,000. The plaintiff rejected our nominal offer to settle the case before trial. Through the use of medical expert testimony, the defense contended that plaintiff's treatment was fueled by her subjective complaints, but there was no objective evidence of injury. The jury ruled in favor of the defendant.
  Obtained a summary judgment on behalf of an insurance agent
  the insurance agency. The agent
  agency helped a business procure property
  liability insurance on its business. A fire loss occurred
  the insured discovered that it did not have business interruption coverage. It sued the agent
  the agency for negligence, breach of contract
  estoppel in failing to procure business interruption coverage for the insured. We convinced the Court that an insurance agent only has a duty to seek coverage which has been requested by the insured. Although the agent reassured the insured the day after the fire that the insured had business interruption coverage, the fact that this statement was incorrect, there is no evidence of any reliance by the insured, any reliance would have been unreasonable
  unforeseen
  the insured would have know that the agent's statements were incorrect if it had looked at the policy in its possession.
  Successfully defended EEOC Charge of Discrimination brought against charter school client for alleged disability discrimination
  failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, as well of claims of FMLA interference
  retaliation, resulting in finding of No Probable Cause in favor of employer.
  Obtained summary judgment on behalf of insurance agency
  insurance agent clients in insurance agent/broker professional liability action involving alleged failure to procure business interruption coverage for insured's start-up restaurant, which subsequently sustained uncovered fire loss.
  Obtained summary judgment on behalf of one of nation's largest grocery store chains in significant federal rights action that received considerable media attention venued in federal court in Cincinnati involving unruly patron
  patron's right to open carry weapon on private premises.
  Secured dispositive dismissal on behalf of national insurance carrier in breach of contract
  bad faith action involving residential fire that occurred at insureds' residence. In addition, as a result of in-depth investigation
  discovery in civil suit, insureds were charged with
  pled guilty to crimes of arson
  insurance fraud.
  Published Works: Legal Updates for Insurance Agents & Brokers, August 2018 - present
  'Berry v. Paint Valley Supply, LLC: Fourth Appellate District's Decision Provides Key Lessons for Personal Injury Defense Litigators,' co-author, Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys (OACTA), Fall 2017 Newsletter