Liberty Mutual is back in the legal fight over a $125,000 settlement that six fired Ohio football coaches say they never agreed to.
On May 13, 2026, Ohio's Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling and sent the case back, finding the trial judge did not address the statute at the center of the defense's motion to dismiss.
The story starts in May 2021 at Canton McKinley High School. Coaches Marcus Wattley, Frank McLeod, Zachary Sweat, Romero Harris, Cade Brodie, and Tyler Thatcher ran a disciplinary exercise that involved a student eating pepperoni pizza while teammates worked out. Allegations followed that the student was required to eat the pizza despite his religious beliefs. The incident drew wide media attention. The coaches were terminated.
Litigation followed in multiple directions. The coaches filed a defamation suit. The student and his father sued in state and federal court. Liberty Mutual, which insured the Canton City School District, retained attorney Kathryn Perrico to defend Superintendent Jeffrey Talbert. The student and father cases were resolved through a $125,000 settlement.
The coaches say they never signed off on the deal.
In June 2024, they sued Liberty Mutual, Perrico, and Talbert. The complaint alleges the settlement was collusive and a sham, that it should have been for a nominal amount, and that Perrico and Talbert agreed to it to reduce their own exposure in the coaches' defamation action – at the coaches' expense.
The case brings bad faith and breach of contract claims against Liberty Mutual, tortious interference claims against Perrico and Talbert, and a third-party legal malpractice claim against Perrico that was added in an amended complaint.
Perrico and Talbert moved to dismiss, both pointing to R.C. 2744.07(C)(2), an Ohio statute that bars any action or appeal challenging a political subdivision's decision to enter a settlement or the amount and circumstances of one. A neighboring provision, R.C. 2744.07(C)(1), allows political subdivisions to settle claims and secure liability releases for themselves or their employees.
The trial court denied the motions. It referenced subsection (C)(1). It did not address subsection (C)(2) - the provision the defendants actually relied on.
The appeals court called that gap fatal. The trial court conducted no analysis of whether the statute applied to the claims and parties before it, and did not explain why the claims could proceed despite the bar. That absence, the panel said, made meaningful appellate review impossible. Two judges concurred; one concurred in judgment only.
The Ninth District reversed and remanded, instructing the trial court to issue an entry that takes on the statute.
The ruling does not decide whether the coaches' claims will ultimately stand. The bad faith and breach of contract claims against Liberty Mutual remain live. On remand, the trial court will need to grapple with whether an Ohio statute designed to shield public-entity settlement decisions also reaches the carrier and outside counsel who handled the underlying defense.
The case heads back to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.
