Care Risk Retention Group v. Martin
191 Ohio App. 3d 797
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Intervening defendants Burnetts appeal a summary judgment in CARE Risk's declaratory-judgment action sought to void Martin's medical-malpractice insurance ab initio.
- CARE Risk issued a claims-made policy covering Dr. Martin; Burnetts sought coverage for their malpractice claims against him.
- Trial court held Dr. Martin's application statements were warranties that voided the policy ab initio; Burnetts argued they were representations.
- Policy and applications included warranty language and provisions that statements are true and incorporated into the policy; prior-acts and no-known-claims documents were signed by Martin.
- Material facts remain regarding whether Martin knowingly or negligently misrepresented information; issues of intervention timing and privacy/medical-records disclosure were contested.
- Court reverses, finds statements are representations, not warranties, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Martin's application statements warranties or representations? | CARE Risk contends statements are warranties that void policy ab initio if false. | Burnetts contend statements are representations, not warranties, under Boggs/Legler framework. | Statements are representations, not warranties. |
| Did the trial court err in denying/controlling intervention timing for Burnetts? | CARE Risk argues intervention timing disputes are interlocutory and moot post-final order. | Burnetts claim Civ.R. 19 rights and prejudice from delayed intervention in the declaratory action. | Intervention timing issues are moot on remand; final order properly addresses intervention. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boggs, 27 Ohio St.2d 216 (Ohio 1971) (two-class distinction: warranties vs representations; void ab initio for warranties)
- Hartford Protection Ins. Co. v. Harmer, 2 Ohio St. 452 (Ohio 1853) (warranty vs representation concept foundational to misstatement consequences)
- First Nat. Bank v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 95 U.S. 673 (Supreme Court, 1877) (distinguishes value estimates from warranties; good faith covenant vs strict warranty)
- Legler v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 88 Ohio St. 336 (Ohio 1913) (insurer may pursue fraud/reckless misrepresentation defense; not all statements are warranties)