SCHOENING INVESTMENT LP v. CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY - Articles

All Content

SCHOENING INVESTMENT LP v. CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 25, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: T. Joseph Snodgrass, SNODGRASS LAW LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Aaron M. Stevenson, BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: T. Joseph Snodgrass, SNODGRASS LAW LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, J. Brandon McWherter, MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC, Brentwood, Tennessee, Erik D. Peterson, ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES PSC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Aaron M. Stevenson, Rodger L. Eckelberry, Graycen M. Wood, BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; GRIFFIN and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Schoening Investment insures its Kentucky properties with Cincinnati Casualty. When Schoening filed a claim with Cincinnati Casualty, the insurer offered to pay the cost of repairs less a deduction for depreciation. Schoening rejected the offer and filed this lawsuit, proposing to lead a putative class and arguing that Cincinnati Casualty improperly deducted depreciation from repair cost payouts. The district court dismissed Schoening’s claim after concluding that the policy authorized Cincinnati Casualty to do just what it did. We agree and affirm.

Attachments: