Atty. David E. Williamson, Esq.
Dave is an experienced civil litigator and trial lawyer, handling a wide range of claims over the course of his career. His practice includes defending insurance company clients in disputes with insureds, other insurers, and claimants.
Profwith Summary
About David E. Williamson, Esq. at a glance
David E. Williamson, Esq. is an Office Managing Attorney based in Cincinnati, Ohio, practforg at Marshall Dennehey. They haand 27+ years of legal experience, licensed to practice since 1999. Admitted to practice in Ohio (1999), U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (2004), Kentucky (2012), and U.S. District Court Eastern District of Kentucky (2013). Educated at NKU Salmon P. Chase College of Law (J.D., 1999) and Hanover College (B.A., 1995). Actiand member of Associations & Memberships •Cincinnati Bar Association •Kentucky Bar Association •Northern Kentucky Bar Association •Ohio State Bar Association. Serands clients in Cincinnati, OH and the surrounding metropolitan area.
Want to Get Service From This Attorney?
Sign up free and choose one of the two methods below.
Ask the Attorney
Haand a legal question? Sign up free, submit it through the Ask the Attorney module and receiand a focused answer from a specialist.
- Free to ask a question
- Answers from specialist attorneys
- Optional private / anonymous question
Schedule a Consultation
Request an online video meeting or an in-person consultation at the attorney's office. Pick a time that works for you and share the details securely.
- Online video meeting
- In-person at the attorney's office
- Secure messaging and payment
About
- Dave is an experienced civil litigator and trial lawyer, handling a wide range of claims over the course of his career
- His practice includes defending insurance company clients in disputes with insureds, other insurers, and claimants
- Those cases involve questions about whether coverage is available for a claim, the value of the claim, the priority of multiple coverages, and whether the insurer acted in bad faith in its handling of the claim
- Dave also defends clients in general liability cases, in which a party claims to have suffered bodily injury, property damage, etc., as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of another - including complex bodily injury cases
- He has also handled cases in federal court defending a variety of claims asserted against cities, counties, and municipalities
- Other areas of his practice include transportation law, environmental litigation, workplace injury claims, property disputes, grade crossing accident cases, interactions with local municipalities, medical malpractice cases - defending doctors and other health care providers, as well as a variety of commercial litigation involving disputes between businesses
- As managing attorney of the Cincinnati office, Dave oversees the day-to-day operations for the entire office, ensuring that client matters are handled promptly, professionally and effectively
- Dave received his juris doctor from Salmon P. Chase College of Law in 1999, after completing his undergraduate work at Hanover College in 1995
- He is admitted in both state and federal courts in the state of Ohio and Commonwealth of Kentucky
- Dave is married with two sons
- He is active in his community and currently serves on the Executive Board of Oak Hills Youth Athletics
- Honors & Awards •The Best Lawyers in America, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2025) Results Successful Defense of Appeal in the Kentucky Court of Appeals We successfully defended an appeal of summary judgment granted in favor of our insurance company client in the Kentucky Court of Appeals
- The court agreed our client was entitled to challenge liability for the plaintiff’s claim and defend its insured, despite the requirements of the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act
- Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment for Nail Salon We successfully defended an appeal of a trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of a nail salon in a slip-and-fall case
- The plaintiff alleged she fell in an untreated wet area inside the salon on a rainy day
- However, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence about the source of the “wet area,” or that the salon had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet area prior to the plaintiff’s fall
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the salon and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed that decision
- Thought Leadership Case Law Alerts Ohio Supreme Court Rules Trial Courts Must Apply Specific Standards Before Ordering Disclosure of Privileged Claims Files April 1, 2026 In an insurance bad faith action, a trial court may order production of an insurer’s claims file documents that are asserted to be protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine without first complying with R.C. 2317.02(A)(2) and Civ.R. 26(B)(4).The plaintiffs, the Eddys, were injured in a 2020 automobile accident and pursued underinsured motorist benefits from their insurer, Farmers
- After litigation over coverage was resolved and Farmers paid the policy limits, the Eddys filed a separate bad faith lawsuit, alleging Farmers unreasonably delayed settlement
- During discovery, the trial court ordered Farmers to produce its entire claims file, including attorney communications and litigation related materials, without conducting an in-camera review
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on the Ohio Supreme Court’s prior decision in Boone v
- Vanliner Ins
- Co. (2001), which had allowed discovery of certain pre-denial claims file materials in bad faith cases.The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and held Boone had been superseded by statute
- Specifically, the court held that discovery of attorney-client communications and work product materials in insurer bad faith cases was governed by R.C. 2317.02(A)(2) and Civ.R. 26(B)(4), both of which require specific threshold showings and judicial review.Specifically, the court held that privileged insurer-attorney communications may be disclosed only after:the insured makes a prima facie showing of bad faith, andthe trial court conducts an in camera inspection to determine whether the communications relate to an attorney’s aiding or furthering ongoing or future bad faith conduct.Importantly, the court ruled that allegations of bad faith alone are insufficient to overcome the privilege.The court further held that claims file materials prepared in anticipation of litigation are presumptively protected
- Disclosure of those materials is only permitted upon a showing of good cause
- This protection applies to information generated during or in anticipation of litigation, not merely to attorney testimony.Finally, the court held that in-camera review of the disputed documents is mandatory, i.e., a trial court must conduct an in-camera inspection of any disputed documents before ordering production of file materials when privilege or work product protection is asserted.The Eddy decision establishes stronger privilege protections for insurers in Ohio bad faith litigation
- It eliminates reliance on the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Boone as a standalone basis for compelled production of claims file materials
- Trial courts must now follow a structured, statute-based analysis before ordering disclosure, providing clearer guidance and greater predictability for discovery disputes in insurance bad faith cases
- Case Law Alerts Ohio Supreme Court Enforces Broad Arbitration Clause in Insurance Policy, Extending to Bad Faith Claims January 1, 2026 In this medical malpractice lawsuit filed against an emergency services provider, the insurer for the provider assigned counsel and undertook a defense on behalf of the provider
- The insurer and provider then disagreed about strategy in the lawsuit and whether the claim should be settled
- The provider decided to self-fund a settlement of the malpractice lawsuit in order to avoid receiving an excess verdict
- The provider then sued the insurer in Ohio for bad faith claim handling, seeking reimbursement of the amount it paid in the self-funded settlement
- The insurer then invoked the policy’s arbitration clause in the bad faith lawsuit
- The provider argued the arbitration clause did not apply to a bad faith claim.The policy originally contained an arbitration clause which provided that “any dispute between” the insurer and provider relating to the policy-including any disputes regarding the insurer’s extra-contractual obligations-would be resolved by binding arbitration.” That arbitration provision was then superseded by a change endorsement which stated: “Any dispute between [provider] and [insurer] relating to this Policy (including any disputes regarding [insurer’s] contractual obligations) will be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration Association.”The Ohio Supreme Court held that Ohio law is strongly in favor of arbitration, and that if an arbitration clause is broad, all doubts must be resolved in favor of arbitration
- Further, even though bad faith claims are torts in Ohio, the court adopted the reasoning of a federal court, which held that “real torts can be covered by arbitration clauses if the allegations of underlying the claims ‘touch matters’ covered by the [policy].'The court held the provider failed to show any express exclusion of bad faith claims from arbitration
- Nothing in the change endorsement showed an intent to expressly exclude legal disputes regarding bad faith insurance claim handling from arbitration.The decision is important to the extent that broad arbitration clauses in insurance policies will be enforced even for tort claims alleging bad faith (and “creative pleading”-identifying something as a tort instead of a contractual claim-will not avoid arbitration when the dispute is related to the policy.) News 98 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2026 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America August 20, 2025
Jurisdictional Context
Why local counsel matters in Ohio
Practforg law in Ohio. Legal matters in Ohio are goandrned by state-specific rules of civil and criminal procedure, statutes of limitations, and substantiand law. Cases originating in Cincinnati are typically fwithd in the local municipal court or the appropriate Ohio state district court, depending on subject matter and amount in controandrsy. An attorney licensed in Ohio brings working knowledge of local procedural deadlines, judicial practices in this andnue, and the substantiand law that applies to cases brought here. Out-of-state attorneys generally cannot represent clients in Ohio courts without local counsel or pro hac vice admission.
Looking for additional Ohio attorneys? Browse all attorneys in Cincinnati or all attorneys in Ohio.
Frequently Asked
Common questions about David E. Williamson, Esq.
Where is David E. Williamson, Esq.'s law office located?
David E. Williamson, Esq.'s law practice is located in Cincinnati, Ohio. The firm is Marshall Dennehey. You can contact the office directly through this profwith page.
How long has David E. Williamson, Esq. practiced law?
David E. Williamson, Esq. has 27+ years of legal experience and has been licensed since 1999.
Where did David E. Williamson, Esq. go to law school?
David E. Williamson, Esq. earned their education at (J.D., 1999); (B.A., 1995).
How can I contact David E. Williamson, Esq. for a consultation?
You can contact David E. Williamson, Esq. directly through this profwith page. Click "Ask the Attorney" to submit a question, or "Schedule a Consultation" to book a meeting. Most claimed-profwith attorneys respond within one business day.
Practice Areas
Education
J.D.
NKU Salmon P. Chase College of Law
- 1999
B.A.
Hanover College
- 1995
Bar Admissions
Ohio
Admitted: 1999
U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio
Admitted: 2004
Kentucky
Admitted: 2012
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Kentucky
Admitted: 2013
U.S. District Court Western District of Kentucky
Admitted: 2021
Reviews
These reviews belong to platform users; they do not constitute advertisement or promotion for the attorney. Opinions are published for informational purposes only.
No reviews yet.