2023 Ohio 1722
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- OBLIC issued a professional "claims-made and reported" liability policy to James Blazek/Pillar Title beginning May 1, 2015, renewed annually; each renewal produced a new Declarations page showing that term's inception and expiration dates.
- In September 2016 Pillar Title employees were tricked by a wire‑transfer scam that resulted in a $93,532.09 loss; Blazek covered the shortfall personally and with company funds and law enforcement was involved, but funds were not recovered.
- Blazek did not notify OBLIC of the loss in 2016 or 2017; in August 2018 he learned at a seminar the loss might be covered and then gave written notice to OBLIC.
- OBLIC denied the claim, asserting (1) the claim was not reported during the same policy period in which it was made, and (2) Blazek improperly paid the claim without insurer consent.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to OBLIC, concluding the policy unambiguously required reporting within the one‑year policy period shown on the Declarations page and each renewal created a new policy period.
- The Tenth District affirmed: the policy period is the term on each Declarations page, renewals create successive policies for reporting purposes, and Blazek’s August 2018 notice was untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy's term for reporting a claims‑made claim is the continuous period from the original inception (May 1, 2015) or the one‑year period shown on each Declarations page | Blazek: “inception” is undefined and could mean original enrollment date; because OBLIC renewed (never cancelled), there was no termination and the claim could be reported later | OBLIC: Declarations page fixes each policy period; renewal issues a new Declarations and new inception/expiration so reporting must occur within that one‑year policy period | Court: Policy unambiguous — “policy period” means the one‑year term on the Declarations; each renewal creates a new policy period and Blazek’s 2018 notice was untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc., 169 Ohio St.3d 387 (insurance‑policy interpretation is a question of law)
- Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) v. Toledo Edison Co., 129 Ohio St.3d 397 (give effect to parties' intent; plain and ordinary meaning controls)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party's summary‑judgment burden and proof requirements)
- Benson v. Rosler, 19 Ohio St.3d 41 (renewal may create a new contract where policy is for a specific duration)
- Wolfe v. Wolfe, 88 Ohio St.3d 246 (limitation of Benson on other grounds)