Herlihy Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Adecco USA, Inc.
772 F. Supp. 2d 898
S.D. Ohio2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege Defendant's breach of an oral contract to conduct a background check on Nickison caused a $203,000 loss.
- Nickison, a temporary employee provided by Defendant, stole funds from Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs sought damages around $203,000.
- Jury trial held January 3–5, 2011; the jury awarded Plaintiffs $65,533.02 for breach.
- Prior to trial, Plaintiffs moved to bar evidence of collateral-source payments; Court later permitted post-trial setoff.
- Plaintiffs received third-party settlements (bank and insurer) exceeding the jury award; defense seeks setoff against verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether third-party settlements can offset the verdict. | Plaintiff (Plaintiffs) argue no setoff should apply. | Defendant contends setoff is proper to prevent double recovery. | Defendant entitled to setoff against verdict. |
| Does collateral-source doctrine bar setoff in this contract action? | Collateral source should not affect setoff and jury consideration. | Collateral-source rule is inapplicable to setoff here. | Collateral-source doctrine does not bar setoff in this case. |
| What is the proper method to determine the setoff amount? | No clear link shown between collateral payments and the same damages. | Setoff should reflect payments actually received for the same loss. | Court computes setoff using actual third-party payments; judgment for zero. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2003 Ohio 5398 (Ohio Ct. App. 2nd Dist. 2003) (post-verdict setoff where jury did not hear collateral-source evidence)
- Kirby v. Barletto, 2009 Ohio 5090 (Ohio App. Dist. 2 2009) (setoff appropriate where jury did not consider collateral payments)
- Goodrich Corp. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 2008 Ohio 3200 (Ohio App. Dist. 4 2008) (settlements may not reflect same damages; limited to particular loss)
- Quantum Capital Ventures, LLC v. Evans, 2004 Ohio 3173 (Ohio App. Dist. 8 2004) (separate claims vs. bank settlement; damages not overlapping here)
- Celmer v. Rodgers, 2005 Ohio 7055 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (setoff principles in Ohio affirming no double recovery)