{¶ 48} I would concur with the majority's opinion as to assignments of error I, II, and IV. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion as to assignment of error III. I would agree that the assets of the new corporation can be followed from the original corporation and those assets may be used to satisfy Dr. Pottschmidt's judgment; however, I disagree with the analysis the majority used to pierce the corporate veil to impose personal liability on Dr. Klosterman. The majority opinion could be used to impose personal liability on the sole shareholder of every solely owned corporation. The majority places a significant emphasis on Dr. Klosterman's personal use of an automobile paid for by the corporation. They seem to overlook the fact that these payments were treated as income to Dr. Klosterman for tax purposes, which is an indication of the separation of the corporation from the individual.
{¶ 49} The majority seems to also focus on the transfer of the assets of the new corporation to avoid liability as a prima facia case for piercing the corporate veil. There is no question that one of the purposes of the corporate structure is to avoid personal liability. The question here is whether the new corporation was established to avoid future liability or liability related to Dr. Pottschmidt's lawsuit. Here, it is clear that the litigation was commenced just prior to the formation of the new corporation. Therefore, under the limited facts of this case, I concur with the majority's opinion as to Assignments of Error I and II. Whatever the liability that existed against the original corporation should be *Page 840 followed to the new corporation and the new corporation cannot avoid the liability to Dr. Pottschmidt. However, Dr. Klosterman should not be held personally liable for either corporation's liabilities.