ZC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and ABSECON HOLDINGS, INC. v. Warren L. Wolfson

*The Hon. Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 04a0178n.06
Filed: December 17, 2004
03-4212
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ZC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
and ABSECON HOLDINGS, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
WARREN L. WOLFSON; WLW TRUST;
RUTH L. WOLFSON; CARE INSTITUTE
GROUP, INC.; and CLEVELAND SENIOR
CARE CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Before: DAUGHTREY, COOK, and FARRIS,* Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. This appeal results from a jury verdict in a diversity action filed by
ZC Specialty Insurance Company and Absecon, Inc., against the defendants, Warren
Wolfson, Ruth Wolfson, and the WLW Trust, for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and
fraud. The dispute between the parties grew out of a business transaction in which
Absecon purchased six nursing homes from Wolfson and his associates, under a financing
scheme that was guaranteed by a surety bond underwritten by ZC Specialty Insurance.
The deal soured when the nursing homes produced profits far below Absecon’s hopes. As
a consequence, Absecon refused to return a financial advance provided by Wolfson and

-- 1 of 2 --

03-4212
- 2 -
accused Wolfson of hiding the homes’ history of poor profit margins. Wolfson filed suit
against Absecon in the district court for failing to return the monetary advance, and
Absecon and ZC Specialty Insurance brought counterclaims for breach of contract, breach
of warranty, and fraud. Pursuant to the verdict in Wolfson’s favor, the plaintiffs appeal to
this court, asserting that the district court erred by dismissing their fraud claims against
Wolfson, by improperly admitting and excluding significant evidence, and by failing to grant
their motion for a new trial because the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the
evidence.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal
and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in denying
the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial. Because the reasons why judgment should be entered
for the defendants have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a
detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose.
Accordingly, we sustain the jury verdict and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in
the defendants’ favor upon the reasoning set out by that court in its memoranda of opinion
and orders filed on October 30, 2002, December 12, 2002, and September 24, 2003.

-- 2 of 2 --