The Ohio saving statute does not limit how many times a lawsuit may be refiled, provided the statute’s requirements are satisfied, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

A Supreme Court majority reversed a portion of an Eighth District Court of Appeals decision. It allowed a client of an investment management firm to continue all his claims against the company for allegedly giving him bad investment advice in 2016. Adam Kohn’s lawsuit against Glenmede Trust Company has been refiled twice using the saving statute, R.C. 2305.19(A).

The Eighth District had limited Kohn’s third case to claims for which the statute of limitations had not expired when he filed his second lawsuit.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Megan E. Shanahan explained that the saving statute permits the refiling of an entire action when the statute’s requirements are met, without requiring a claim-by-claim determination of whether the statute of limitations had expired before an earlier refiling.

“Nothing in the saving statute provides that it may be used only once. And nothing in the saving statute provides that it applies only when a second filing of an action occurred within the original statute-of-limitations period,” she wrote.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Jennifer Brunner, Joseph T. Deters, and Daniel R. Hawkins joined Justice Shanahan’s opinion. Justice Patrick F. Fischer concurred in judgment only.

Appeals Court Severed Some of Investor’s Claims
Kohn hired Glenmede Trust to create a trust and help him manage shares of stock he owned. He alleged that advice from a Glenmede advisor cost him millions of dollars in potential investment income.

Kohn filed a lawsuit against Glenmede, its advisor, and some affiliates. Kohn alleged eight claims, including breach of contract, negligence, and fraud. Using Rule 41(A)(1)(a) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Kohn voluntarily dismissed his case against Glenmede in September 2017. Using the saving statute, he refiled the case in 2018.

In August 2022, the trial court dismissed Kohn’s second lawsuit without prejudice under Civil Rule 41(A)(2).  Kohn refiled the lawsuit in January 2023, making the same claims against Glenmede as in his two prior filings.

Glenmede moved to dismiss the case in the third lawsuit, arguing that Kohn had already used the saving statute to refile his case in 2018 and could not use it again in 2023. Glenmede also argued that the statute of limitations had expired on the negligence claims before Kohn refiled in 2023, and those claims could not continue. The trial court agreed with Glenmede and dismissed the case.

Kohn appealed to the Eighth District. The appeals court considered each of Kohn’s eight claims and determined which claims could be saved by the statute. The Eighth District ruled the statute of limitations on Kohn’s negligence claims had expired before he filed his second lawsuit. It also ruled that Kohn received the benefit of extending the statute of limitations for the negligence claim when he first used the saving statute in 2018, and that he could not use it again.

For Kohn’s fraud, breach of contract, and other claims, the Eighth District determined that the applicable statutes of limitations had not yet expired when he filed his second lawsuit in 2018.  The appeals court concluded, in reliance on the saving statute, that those claims could proceed in his third lawsuit.

The Eighth District recognized its decision conflicted with the Fifth District’s 2002 McGowan v. Family Medicine Inc. decision. In that case, the Fifth District concluded that the saving statute applies to an action as a whole rather than separately to each claim. 

Glenmede appealed the Eighth District’s decision to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed to consider the case and the conflict among appeals courts.

Supreme Court Analyzed Saving Statute
The saving statute, R.C. 2305.19(A), provides that when an action is commenced and then fails other than on the merits, a plaintiff may commence a new action within one year after the date the case failed or within the period of the original applicable statute of limitations, whichever occurs later.

Justice Shanahan explained the Eighth District’s approach to examining each claim rests on a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s 2024 McCullough v. Bennett decision. The Court in McCullough ruled there is no “one-use” limit on the saving statute. Although the plaintiff in McCullough filed his second action before the statute of limitations expired, Justice Shanahan explained that this fact did not control the Court’s holding that the saving statute contains no one-use restriction.

The Eighth District and Glenmede interpreted the McCullough decision to mean there is a one-use restriction on claims on which the statute of limitations had expired at the time of the second filing. The Court today explained that the expiration of the original statute of limitations does not prevent a subsequent use of the saving statute when its requirements are satisfied.

The Court stated the term “action” in the law means a judicial proceeding and applies to the entire lawsuit. It is not applied on a claim-by-claim basis, the opinion explained. The statute does not require each subsequent lawsuit to be filed within the original statute-of-limitations period, provided the requirements of the saving statute are satisfied.

The Court explained that R.C. 2305.19(A) allows a timely commenced action that subsequently fails otherwise than on the merits to be refiled within one year of that failure or within the original applicable statute-of-limitations period, whichever is later.

“Accordingly, we reiterate that the saving statute does not contain a one-use restriction. The General Assembly could have included a restriction. But it did not,” the opinion stated.

The Court noted that the concern raised in McCullough was that allowing multiple uses of the saving statute could lead to extensive delays through serial dismissals and refilings. The Court responded by noting that Civil Rule 41 contains safeguards against abusive refiling.

The Court stated that Kohn’s second lawsuit filing properly invoked the saving statute. When the trial court dismissed it without prejudice, the lawsuit failed otherwise than on its merits. Because it did not fail on the merits, Kohn had the option to use the saving statute again to refile his entire case. The Eighth District incorrectly severed the negligence claims from the rest of Kohn’s case, the Court ruled.

The Court affirmed the Eighth District’s decision allowing Kohn’s fraud, breach-of-contract, and other claims to proceed, reversed its decision upholding the dismissal of his negligence claims, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

2025-0737 and 2025-0818. Kohn v. Glenmede Trust Co., N.A., Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-4001.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.