2014 Ohio 4342
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Charlesgate Commons Condominium Association (plaintiff) owned a commercial condominium building insured by Western Reserve Group (defendant).
- In August 2011 a storm with hail occurred; plaintiff claimed hail damaged the roof shingles and submitted an insurance claim that defendant denied.
- Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and bad faith in November 2012 after defendant refused coverage for roof replacement.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing (1) no direct physical damage to the shingles from hail and (2) its denial to replace the entire roof was reasonable; plaintiff opposed and submitted expert testimony.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, concluding defendant met its Dresher burden and plaintiff’s expert failed to show, with requisite probability, that hail caused shingle damage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant met initial Dresher burden to show absence of covered physical damage | Plaintiff contended hail caused roof damage and produced expert opinion to that effect | Defendant asserted its expert found no hail damage to shingles and thus no covered loss | Held for defendant: evidence showed no hail damage to shingles, satisfying defendant’s Dresher burden |
| Whether plaintiff produced admissible expert evidence of causation sufficient to create a genuine issue | Plaintiff argued its expert’s opinion linked hail to shingle damage | Defendant argued plaintiff’s expert gave only conclusory, non-probabilistic opinion insufficient under Stinson/Jackson standard | Held for defendant: plaintiff’s expert did not state causation with required probability; opinion insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether trial court improperly considered appellee’s reply or unauthenticated evidence | Plaintiff argued new arguments in defendant’s reply and an unauthenticated expert report were relied on improperly | Defendant noted the motion addressed expert certainty and trial court properly evaluated admissibility; no objection to authentication was made below | Held for defendant: plaintiff waived objection to authentication by not raising it in trial court; reply arguments not preserved by motion to strike, and court applied correct standard |
| Proper legal standard for admissibility of expert testimony on causation | Plaintiff contended courts do not require “magic words” and expert testimony should be considered in its entirety | Defendant urged application of probability/ reasonable scientific certainty standard (not mere possibility) | Held: court applied Stinson/State v. Jackson standard — expert must express opinion in terms of probability, but no specific magic-words required; plaintiff’s expert failed that test |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (summary-judgment burdens between moving and nonmoving parties)
- Stinson v. England, 69 Ohio St.3d 451 (1994) (expert proximate-cause opinions must be stated in terms of probability)
- State v. Jackson, 92 Ohio St.3d 436 (2001) (reasonable scientific certainty is synonymous with probability for expert testimony)
- White v. Ctr. Mfg. Co., 126 Ohio App.3d 715 (6th Dist. 1998) (no magic words required; expert testimony must, in context, express probability)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (1978) (standard for granting summary judgment)