The Ohio Supreme Court recently made a significant ruling regarding the state's saving statute, which allows plaintiffs to refile lawsuits after they have been dismissed. This ruling affects how individuals and entities can pursue legal claims, particularly in cases where the statute of limitations may have expired. The case in question, Kohn v. Glenmede Trust Co., N.A., was decided on October 15, 2026, and has implications for future litigation in Ohio.
In this case, Adam Kohn filed a lawsuit against Glenmede Trust Company, N.A., and Robert Siewert, concerning a contract for investment-management services. After his initial lawsuit (Kohn I) was voluntarily dismissed in September 2017, Kohn filed a second lawsuit (Kohn II) within a year. However, Kohn II was dismissed without prejudice in August 2022. Kohn then filed a third lawsuit (Kohn III) in January 2023. The core issue was whether Kohn could rely on Ohio's saving statute to refile his claims, especially since some claims had expired under the statute of limitations before the second filing.
The Ohio Supreme Court's ruling clarified that the saving statute, R.C. 2305.19(A), allows a party to refile an action even if the statute of limitations for certain claims had expired before the previous use of the saving statute. The court emphasized that the statute does not impose a one-use restriction on the ability to refile claims. Judge Shanahan, who authored the opinion, stated, "When the terms of the saving statute are met, nothing in the statute prohibits the refiling of an action—even if the statute of limitations expired for a claim asserted in that action before a previous use of the saving statute."
The court's decision stemmed from a conflict between two appellate districts regarding the interpretation of the saving statute. The Eighth District had ruled that Kohn's negligence claims were time-barred because he had already invoked the saving statute when he filed Kohn II. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the saving statute applies to the action as a whole, not to each claim independently. The court noted, "Once an action has been timely commenced, R.C. 2305.19(A) does not limit the number of times a new action may be commenced in accordance with the statute’s terms."
This ruling is significant for plaintiffs in Ohio, as it allows them greater flexibility in pursuing claims that may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. By affirming that the saving statute applies to the entire action, the court has opened the door for plaintiffs to refile actions without the fear of losing claims due to timing issues. This could lead to more cases being heard in court, as plaintiffs now have a clearer path to pursue their legal rights.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond just the parties involved in Kohn v. Glenmede Trust Co. It sets a precedent for how lower courts will interpret the saving statute in future cases. The decision may encourage more plaintiffs to file lawsuits, knowing they have the option to refile if their initial attempts are unsuccessful. Additionally, it may impact how defense attorneys approach cases, as they will need to consider the potential for multiple filings under the saving statute.
Looking ahead, the ruling in Kohn v. Glenmede Trust Co. may be appealed in certain contexts, but the Supreme Court's decision provides a strong framework for understanding the application of the saving statute. There are no related cases pending that directly challenge this ruling, but it could influence ongoing litigation strategies across Ohio.
In conclusion, the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling in Kohn v. Glenmede Trust Co. clarifies the application of the saving statute, allowing for greater access to the courts for plaintiffs. This decision not only affects the parties involved but also sets an important precedent for future cases in Ohio's legal landscape.