DeVito v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co.
996 N.E.2d 547
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- DeVito sued Grange and Zito for denial of coverage on a homeowners claim and alleged bad-faith denial and fiduciary breach.
- Grange and Zito moved to bifurcate the bad-faith claim and to stay discovery on it; the trial court granted in part and denied in part, allowing discovery on all issues.
- Grange and Zito appealed, arguing discovery should be stayed until underlying contract claims were resolved.
- Ohio appellate court confronted whether discovery of privileged materials related to bad faith could proceed and whether a stay was appropriate pending underlying claims.
- The court ultimately found the stay was required and remanded with instructions to stay discovery on the bad-faith claim pending resolution of the contract claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not staying discovery on the bad-faith claim. | DeVito argues discovery should proceed to prove bad faith. | Grange and Zito contend discovery on bad-faith materials prejudices defense and should be stayed. | Yes, stay of discovery on the bad-faith claim is required; order reversed and remanded with stay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boone v. Vanliner Ins. Co., 91 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio Supreme Court 2001) (insurer’s pre-denial attorney-client materials may be produced in bad-faith discovery; stay may be issued to protect defense)
- Garg v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 155 Ohio App.3d 258 (Ohio App. 2d Dist. 2003) (failure to stay bad-faith discovery can be an abuse of discretion; need to protect defense)
- Stewart v. Siciliano, 2012-Ohio-6123 (Ohio App. 11th Dist. 2012) (provisional remedy discovery orders may be final and appealable; supports stay when necessary)
- Unklesbay v. Fenwick, 2006-Ohio-2630 (Ohio App. 2d Dist. 2006) (supports bifurcation and careful discovery on bad-faith claims to avoid prejudice)