The Ohio Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court ruling in a case involving a dispute between Michael Williams and Erie Insurance Company regarding insurance coverage for roof damage. The court's decision, filed on October 30, 2026, affects Williams, who owns a commercial property that sustained damage from a windstorm, and Erie Insurance, the company that issued the insurance policy. The ruling is significant as it allows for a new trial on Williams's breach of contract claim against Erie.

The case, Williams v. Erie Ins. Co., (C.A. No. 2026-CA-9), centers around an incident that occurred on July 20, 2023, when a windstorm damaged the roof of a commercial building owned by Williams in Piqua, Ohio. Williams alleged that Erie Insurance failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the damage and did not indemnify him properly according to the terms of the insurance policy. Williams claimed that the entire roof needed replacement, while Erie argued that only minor repairs were necessary.

In the initial proceedings, Williams filed a first amended complaint against Erie, claiming breach of contract and bad faith. Erie responded by moving for summary judgment, which the trial court granted concerning the bad faith claim but denied regarding the breach of contract claim. A jury trial was held on March 31 and April 1, 2026, where evidence was presented from both sides regarding the extent of the damage and the necessary repairs.

During the trial, Williams testified that Erie had hired a third-party inspection company, Seek Now, to assess the roof damage. The inspector reported that only four shingles had been damaged. However, Williams argued that the roof was not repairable due to the nature of the damage and that repairing the damaged shingles would lead to further issues. Testimony from roofing professionals supported Williams's claim that the roof needed complete replacement, which would cost approximately $70,000.

Despite this evidence, the jury ultimately ruled in favor of Erie, answering “No” to the first interrogatory, which asked if Williams proved that the windstorm caused damage beyond the four shingles, six appliques, and one ridge cap. The trial court then issued a judgment favoring Erie, prompting Williams to appeal.

In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Presiding Judge Ronald C. Lewis, found that the trial court had made an error by submitting an improper interrogatory to the jury. The court noted that the interrogatory did not adequately address the determinative issue of whether the windstorm caused consequential damage to the roof. The court stated, “Interrogatory No. 1 was legally objectionable, did not address a determinative issue, and undermined the proper function of the jury.” As a result, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered a new trial on Williams's breach of contract claim.

The ruling is important for several reasons. It highlights the necessity for jury instructions and interrogatories to accurately reflect the issues at hand in a case. The court's decision to reverse the trial court's ruling indicates that proper legal procedures must be followed to ensure that juries can make informed decisions based on the evidence presented. This case may set a precedent for how similar insurance disputes are handled in the future.

Moving forward, the new trial will allow Williams to present his case again, potentially leading to a different outcome regarding the insurance coverage for his property. The ruling also emphasizes the importance of clear communication and understanding between the parties involved in insurance claims.

As for what’s next, the case is set for a new trial, allowing both parties to present their arguments again. There is no indication in the court filing that the decision can be appealed further at this time.