2019 Ohio 1555
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- 2010 car crash: Brummitt and others severely injured; tort verdict awarded Brummitt damages; tort defendant (Seeholzer) had only $50,000 liability coverage; Brummitt had UM/UIM coverage with Ohio Mutual (OMIG) with $500,000 limits.
- Brummitt sued Seeholzer and OMIG for bad faith handling of the UM/UIM claim; negligence phase verdict (2013) awarded compensatory damages; OMIG later paid that judgment.
- Brummitt tried the insurer bad-faith claim (bifurcated) in January 2016; jury awarded $352,277.36 compensatory damages, $250,000 punitive damages, and attorney fees (later a separate fee hearing awarded $100,000).
- OMIG appealed several trial rulings; the trial court later awarded $33,586.99 in prejudgment interest; appeals and a cross-appeal were consolidated in this opinion.
- The Sixth District affirmed in part and reversed in part: it reversed the punitive damages award (and thus vacated the attorney-fee award tied to punitive damages), affirmed the prejudgment-interest award, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brummitt) | Defendant's Argument (OMIG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by allowing amendment to add punitive-damages claim days before trial | Punitive damages are a category of damages, not a new cause of action; no prejudice to OMIG | Late amendment prejudiced OMIG’s ability to prepare a defense | Amendment proper; no abuse of discretion (motion to amend allowed) |
| Whether supplemental expert report 3 days before trial should be excluded | Supplement responded to opponent’s deposition; timely original report; supplement necessary | Late supplement prejudiced OMIG’s preparation | Court did not abuse discretion in admitting the supplement |
| Whether expert testimony and jury instruction referencing Ohio Adm.Code 3901-1-54 (UCSPA) may be used as evidence of bad faith | UCSPA/administrative rules inform industry practice and may be considered | Administrative rules do not create private cause; their violation is not per se evidence of bad faith | Error to admit UCSPA-violation testimony as evidence of bad faith and to instruct jury to consider it; assignment sustained |
| Whether trial court’s bench questioning misstated appellate history (that Brummitt did not appeal) and prejudiced OMIG | Brummitt: trial court accurately corrected questioning | OMIG: court misstated facts, prevented OMIG from arguing payment delay was justified during appeal | Court’s factual misstatement and questioning was an abuse of discretion and prejudiced OMIG; assignment sustained |
| Whether various improper trial statements warranted mistrial (cold-shoulder condolence, settlement-valuation remark, mention of insurance) | OMIG: cumulative improper conduct and references prejudiced jury and warranted mistrial | Brummitt: objections sustained or improper material stricken; curative actions taken (striking, juror replacement, instructions) | No abuse of discretion in denying mistrials for these incidents (curative measures adequate) |
| Whether prejudgment interest on bad-faith judgment was properly awarded under R.C. 1343.03 | Brummitt: OMIG failed to make good-faith settlement efforts; discovery and settlement conduct support interest | OMIG: magistrate correctly denied interest; Brummitt did not meet burden | Trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding prejudgment interest; award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Zoppo v. Homestead Ins. Co., 71 Ohio St.3d 552 (Ohio 1994) (insurer bad-faith standard; punitive damages require actual malice, fraud, or insult)
- Blodgett v. Blodgett, 49 Ohio St.3d 243 (Ohio 1990) (voluntary satisfaction of judgment renders related appeal moot)
- Niskanen v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 486 (Ohio 2009) (punitive damages are a category of recovery, not a separate cause of action)
- Furr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 128 Ohio App.3d 607 (Ohio Ct. App.) (administrative rules do not create a private cause and generally should not be treated as dispositive evidence of bad faith)
- Kalain v. Smith, 25 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1986) (factors for determining good-faith settlement efforts in prejudgment-interest analysis)
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (Ohio 1995) (burden of proof for prejudgment interest and appellate review standards)
- Galmish v. Cicchini, 90 Ohio St.3d 22 (Ohio 2000) (trial court may consider trial record and prior rulings when deciding prejudgment-interest entitlement)