Article by Holly Olarczuk-Smith, Esq.
On October 15, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court, in Kohn v. Glenmede Trust Co., N.A., determined that Ohio’s saving statute does not limit how many times a lawsuit may be refiled so long as the statute’s requirements are satisfied.
Ohio’s saving statute, R.C. 2305.19(A), states that when an action is commenced and then fails other than upon 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.
The Ohio Supreme Court explained that the saving statute permits the refiling of an entire action when the statute’s requirements are met without requiring an “individual claim” determination of whether the statute of limitations had expired before an earlier refiling. Kohn at ¶15. Additionally, “[n]othing 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. Rather, once an action has been timely commenced, R.C. 2305.19(A) does not limit the number of times a new action may be commenced in accordance with the statute’s terms.” Kohn at ¶15. “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.” Kohn at ¶17.
In this particular case, the Ohio Supreme Court allowed a client of an investment management firm to continue all his claims against the company for allegedly giving him bad investment advice. The lawsuit against the company had been refiled twice using the saving statute, R.C. 2305.19(A). Kohn at ¶19. “Applying the plain language of the saving statute, we hold that when the terms of the saving statute are met, nothing in the statute prohibits the refiling of an action—even if the statute of limitations expired for a claim asserted in that action before a previous use of the saving statute.” Kohn at ¶1.
The opinion can be found here.