Gillispie later sued over constitutional violations in the investigation that led to his wrongful conviction. On Nov. 21, 2022, a jury returned a $45 million verdict in favor of Gillispie and against Moore.
His attorneys said that Miami Twp. was Moore’s employer and was therefore liable.
“The Jury’s verdict also supplied the basis for finding that Miami Township must pay that judgment as an indemnitor to Defendant Moore under Ohio law...The Court entered judgment in favor of Gillispie against Moore and in favor of Moore against the Township consistent with that verdict,” reads a court filing from David Owens at Loevy & Loevy, which is representing Gillispie.
In these recent court filings before the Ohio Southern District Court, Gillispie is seeking a telephone conference with the court and Miami Twp. on establishing a timeline for the payment of his $45 million verdict, with his attorneys saying Gillispie is being harmed by the township over its refusal to pay and its continued fight against paying the $45 million judgement.
The U.S. Supreme Court in January declined to review the case after a federal appeals court ruled last May that Miami Twp. must pay the full $45 million awarded to Gillispie. The township’s attorneys at that time said the amount was too high and that the ruling could leave Miami Twp. “financially ruined for generations.”
The court said there was ample evidence showing the harm Gillispie suffered from being wrongly labeled a violent felon to losing years of freedom and normal life. Because of that, the judges refused to reduce the verdict.
In the township’s response to Gillispie’s request for a telephone conference on a payment timeline, the township makes the argument that it is not liable to Gillispie but is to Moore and that Gillispie cannot make the indemnification demand on behalf of Moore.
The original $45 million ruling was against Moore and Miami Twp. “was found not liable for any wrongdoing,” Jeffrey Cox, an attorney at Faruki PLL that is representing the Miami Township Board of Trustees, says in a court filing.
The township’s responsibility is for the indemnification of Moore, and “Moore did not assert indemnification until 2022, a few months before trial,” Cox’s filing reads.
Indemnification refers to the legal concept of one party compensating for another party for damages or liabilities. Since Moore was working for the township at the time of Moore’s misconduct, the township is responsible for compensating for those damages from Moore’s misconduct, according to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The township says it is Moore’s indemnitor and that “Gillispie has no vested rights in Moore’s indemnification order,” according to Cox’s court filing.
“As such, he cannot claim to be harmed from not getting paid by the Township when he has no right to demand payment from the Township,” Cox’s court filing reads.
The township says there are questions regarding how Moore’s indemnification should be paid and, therefore, the case needs to go before the Ohio Supreme Court.
In a response to the township’s response, Owens writes, “at this point there is no dispute that: (1) Moore has demanded indemnification; (2) this Court has ruled the Township must indemnify Moore for the ‘entire judgement against him’” and this order is meant to compel the township to outline a process for payment.
The court has not yet filed a decision on the request for a telephone conference.
About the Author
