State v. Berlinger, 954 N.E.2d 1290

Berlinger pled guilty to fifth-degree felony theft for stealing steel valued at $13,148 from Metro Deck Inc.
A victim-impact statement indicated Metro Deck had been reimbursed in full by its insurer for the theft.
The trial court ordered Berlinger to pay restitution in the full amount to Metro Deck.
R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) authorizes restitution to the victim or survivor or designated agencies, based on the victim’s economic loss, with specified recipients.
Berlinger argued the restitution order was unlawful because the victim had been insured and reimbursed.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the restitution order was authorized and that Metro Deck sustained economic loss despite being insured.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution to the victim is proper when the victim was reimbursed by insurance.	Berlinger argues the insurer reimbursement defeats the basis for restitution.	The state contends the statute permits restitution to the victim based on economic loss, regardless of insurance reimbursement.	Restitution to the victim is authorized under the statute.

State v. Kreischer, 109 Ohio St.3d 391 (2006-Ohio-2706) (discusses restitution framework and statutory authority)
State v. Bartholomew, 119 Ohio St.3d 359 (2008-Ohio-4080) (clarifies restitution principles under R.C. 2929.18)
State v. Perkins, 190 Ohio App.3d 328 (2010-Ohio-5058) (applies restitution statute to appellate context)
State v. Moss, 186 Ohio App.3d 787 (2010-Ohio-1135) (examines economic loss and insurance considerations)