Oral arguments presented to Ohio Supreme Court today in Lucarell v. Nationwide case

COLUMBUS

The Ohio Supreme Court is considering whether a Youngstown-area insurance agent should receive millions in damages in a contract dispute with the company she formerly represented.

Justices had oral arguments Wednesday in the case of Christine Lucarell v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance, with business groups keeping a close eye on the outcome.

Quintin Lindsmith, representing the company, asked the state’s high court to declare “loud and clear” you cannot get punitive damages for breach-of-contract claims.

But Randy Hart, representing Lucarell, said other court precedent upholds his client’s case.

“We agree that a general rule in the state of Ohio has been for a long time that you cannot get punitive damages off of a breach-of-contract claim,” he said. “Not in dispute and not something that you’re going to hear me try to argue about. ... It’s not a change in the law, it’s not a change in anything that this court has ever done. ... What we’re suggesting is that the court was right.”

According to documents, Lucarell signed a contract in 2005 to become a Nationwide independent contractor exclusive agent, receiving a $260,000 loan from an affiliate bank to establish her own agency.

Through the program, if she met certain property and casualty insurance product sales goals – about $1.2 million in premiums over a three-year period – the loan would be waived wholly or in part.

In her court filings, Lucarell noted she earned “approximately $400,000” during her first year of operation, received several awards from the company for her performance and was “on track” to reach the minimum production plan requirements.

The company countered that, after opening her office, Lucarell “began to complain to Nationwide that production requirements to which she had agreed were too high.”

The company subsequently altered her agreement and provided additional funding for her to develop a business plan.

Lucarell, in documents, said the company required her and other agents to sign off on the agreement modifications, with the threat of termination if they did not.

Read more about the case in Thursday's Vindicator or on Vindy.com.