David E. Williamson, Esq., Business Attorney in Cincinnati, Ohio

Dave is an experienced civil litigator and trial lawyer, handling a wide range of claims over the course of his career. His practice includes defending insurance company clients in disputes with insureds, other insurers, and claimants. Those cases involve questions about whether coverage is available for a claim, the value of the claim, the priority of multiple coverages, and whether the insurer acted in bad faith in its handling of the claim.

Dave also defends clients in general liability cases, in which a party claims to have suffered bodily injury, property damage, etc., as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of another - including complex bodily injury cases. He has also handled cases in federal court defending a variety of claims asserted against cities, counties, and municipalities. Other areas of his practice include transportation law, environmental litigation, workplace injury claims, property disputes, grade crossing accident cases, interactions with local municipalities, medical malpractice cases - defending doctors and other health care providers, as well as a variety of commercial litigation involving disputes between businesses.

As managing attorney of the Cincinnati office, Dave oversees the day-to-day operations for the entire office, ensuring that client matters are handled promptly, professionally and effectively.

Dave received his juris doctor from Salmon P. Chase College of Law in 1999, after completing his undergraduate work at Hanover College in 1995. He is admitted in both state and federal courts in the state of Ohio and Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Dave is married with two sons. He is active in his community and currently serves on the Executive Board of Oak Hills Youth Athletics.

Honors & Awards

•The Best Lawyers in America, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2025)

Results

Successful Defense of Appeal in the Kentucky Court of Appeals

We successfully defended an appeal of summary judgment granted in favor of our insurance company client in the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The court agreed our client was entitled to challenge liability for the plaintiff’s claim and defend its insured, despite the requirements of the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act.

Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment for Nail Salon

We successfully defended an appeal of a trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of a nail salon in a slip-and-fall case. The plaintiff alleged she fell in an untreated wet area inside the salon on a rainy day. However, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence about the source of the “wet area,” or that the salon had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet area prior to the plaintiff’s fall. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the salon and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.

Thought Leadership

Case Law Alerts

Ohio Supreme Court Rules Trial Courts Must Apply Specific Standards Before Ordering Disclosure of Privileged Claims Files

April 1, 2026

In an insurance bad faith action, a trial court may order production of an insurer’s claims file documents that are asserted to be protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine without first complying with R.C. 2317.02(A)(2) and Civ.R. 26(B)(4).The plaintiffs, the Eddys, were injured in a 2020 automobile accident and pursued underinsured motorist benefits from their insurer, Farmers. After litigation over coverage was resolved and Farmers paid the policy limits, the Eddys filed a separate bad faith lawsuit, alleging Farmers unreasonably delayed settlement. During discovery, the trial court ordered Farmers to produce its entire claims file, including attorney communications and litigation related materials, without conducting an in-camera review. The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on the Ohio Supreme Court’s prior decision in Boone v. Vanliner Ins. Co. (2001), which had allowed discovery of certain pre-denial claims file materials in bad faith cases.The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and held Boone had been superseded by statute. Specifically, the court held that discovery of attorney-client communications and work product materials in insurer bad faith cases was governed by R.C. 2317.02(A)(2) and Civ.R. 26(B)(4), both of which require specific threshold showings and judicial review.Specifically, the court held that privileged insurer-attorney communications may be disclosed only after:the insured makes a prima facie showing of bad faith, andthe trial court conducts an in camera inspection to determine whether the communications relate to an attorney’s aiding or furthering ongoing or future bad faith conduct.Importantly, the court ruled that allegations of bad faith alone are insufficient to overcome the privilege.The court further held that claims file materials prepared in anticipation of litigation are presumptively protected. Disclosure of those materials is only permitted upon a showing of good cause. This protection applies to information generated during or in anticipation of litigation, not merely to attorney testimony.Finally, the court held that in-camera review of the disputed documents is mandatory, i.e., a trial court must conduct an in-camera inspection of any disputed documents before ordering production of file materials when privilege or work product protection is asserted.The Eddy decision establishes stronger privilege protections for insurers in Ohio bad faith litigation. It eliminates reliance on the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Boone as a standalone basis for compelled production of claims file materials. Trial courts must now follow a structured, statute-based analysis before ordering disclosure, providing clearer guidance and greater predictability for discovery disputes in insurance bad faith cases.

Case Law Alerts

Ohio Supreme Court Enforces Broad Arbitration Clause in Insurance Policy, Extending to Bad Faith Claims

January 1, 2026

In this medical malpractice lawsuit filed against an emergency services provider, the insurer for the provider assigned counsel and undertook a defense on behalf of the provider. The insurer and provider then disagreed about strategy in the lawsuit and whether the claim should be settled. The provider decided to self-fund a settlement of the malpractice lawsuit in order to avoid receiving an excess verdict. The provider then sued the insurer in Ohio for bad faith claim handling, seeking reimbursement of the amount it paid in the self-funded settlement. The insurer then invoked the policy’s arbitration clause in the bad faith lawsuit. The provider argued the arbitration clause did not apply to a bad faith claim.The policy originally contained an arbitration clause which provided that “any dispute between” the insurer and provider relating to the policy-including any disputes regarding the insurer’s extra-contractual obligations-would be resolved by binding arbitration.” That arbitration provision was then superseded by a change endorsement which stated: “Any dispute between [provider] and [insurer] relating to this Policy (including any disputes regarding [insurer’s] contractual obligations) will be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration Association.”The Ohio Supreme Court held that Ohio law is strongly in favor of arbitration, and that if an arbitration clause is broad, all doubts must be resolved in favor of arbitration. Further, even though bad faith claims are torts in Ohio, the court adopted the reasoning of a federal court, which held that “real torts can be covered by arbitration clauses if the allegations of underlying the claims ‘touch matters’ covered by the [policy].'The court held the provider failed to show any express exclusion of bad faith claims from arbitration. Nothing in the change endorsement showed an intent to expressly exclude legal disputes regarding bad faith insurance claim handling from arbitration.The decision is important to the extent that broad arbitration clauses in insurance policies will be enforced even for tort claims alleging bad faith (and “creative pleading”-identifying something as a tort instead of a contractual claim-will not avoid arbitration when the dispute is related to the policy.)

News

98 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2026 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

August 20, 2025