Reply to Oberlin and defamation suit interest

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Oberlin and defamation suit interest"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The Ohio Supreme Court refused to hear Oberlin's appeal, and the college owes $36 million to the Gibsons. The college has still not admitted they or their administrators did any thing wrong, and may choose to try to appeal to federal court in their continuing effort to exhaust the resources of the Gibson family.

The $36 million doesn’t include Oberlin’s own legal fees. The total cost is probably more than half of the college’s total annual budget. It’s amazing that the college has chosen this path when an apology early on would have made the case go away.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/08/ohio-supreme-court-rejects-oberlin-colleges-appeal-of-36-million-defamation-verdict.html

Here’s a few articles from “National” sources for those who want to say it’s a “non-story:”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/court-wont-hear-appeal-in-oberlin-college-25m-judgment/2022/08/30/42de1850-288c-11ed-a90a-fce4015dfc8f_story.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oberlin-court-wont-hear-appeal-in-25-million-judgment/
[/quote]

Oberlin’s insurance carrier paid the legal fees.[/quote]

Cite for this?  Last I saw, Oberlin’s insurance carrier is disclaiming liability and the Board was making the calls on the litigation.  Error and Omissions policies don’t cover intentional torts. [/quote]

One of Oberlin’s carriers, Lexington, filed a motion to intervene in 2019 that indicated that it and/or one of the other carriers was providing a defense, and seeking to address certain issues related to indemnity coverage.  Modern liability policies, particularly those obtained by sophisticated entities, typically include some kind of final adjudication requirement in the intentional conduct exclusion that means the insurer has to provide a defense [b]unless and until there is a formal determination or legal admission of intentional conduct.  [/b]

As for Oberlin controlling the defense, given the nature of the claim and the likely coverage defenses, most likely Oberlin has a right to independent counsel based on a potential of conflict of interest between the insurer and the insured.  In that case, Oberlin would be entitled to control the defense while the insurer would pay the bills. [/quote]

You’re making assumptions. Lexington’s intervention didn’t say that other insurers were providing the defense. Lexington just made the claim that the Lexington policy was excess to two other general insurance policies, and from the filing, it appears that there is some dispute about which insurer is responsible for coverage.  I’ve yet to see any evidence that those policies are paying for this litigation.

In any case, it’s moot at this point — the case is done, and there *was* a finding of intentional conduct (unless Oberlin intends to try to appeal to the US Supreme Court, which is a long shot, but something I could see them do, based on their record of seeking delay at any cost).  The bolded was exactly Lexington’s point in their intervention — their coverage doesn’t include damages resulting from intentional defamatory statements and malicious acts, much less punitive damages arising from these things.

Oberlin’s handling of this case is the exact opposite of everything I’ve tried to teach my kids. If you’ve made a mistake, admit it, apologize, and try to make it right. If you try to deny responsibility, you just delay the inevitable and make an even bigger mess. The Oberlin leadership should not be in charge of educating young people.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/exclusive-oberlin-college-insurer-likely-to-reject-coverage-for-gibson-bakery-11-million-verdict/amp/

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics