Dillon v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc. (Slip Opinion)
145 Ohio St. 3d 133
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Jerry and Nancy Dillon’s vehicle was damaged hitting a deer; Farmers Insurance adjusted the claim and prepared a written repair estimate that relied on non‑OEM aftermarket parts.
- Dillon instructed a repair shop to use OEM parts and agreed to pay the approx. $1,500 difference; Farmers mailed the estimate after Dillon had already ordered OEM parts.
- Farmers issued payments directly to the repair facility during the repair process; Dillons sued Farmers alleging violations of R.C. 1345.81(B)(1) and other CSPA claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Dillons on the 1345.81 claim and awarded trebled damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs; the Fifth District partially reduced damages but otherwise affirmed.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted discretionary review to decide whether an insurer’s issuance of a repair estimate constitutes a “consumer transaction” under the CSPA and thus can give rise to CSPA damages under R.C. 1345.81(E).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an insurer’s issuance of a repair estimate is a “consumer transaction” under R.C. 1345.01 | Dillon: Insurer’s written estimate for a specific repair (including non‑OEM parts) relates directly to the automobile repair consumer transaction and triggers CSPA protections; failure to obtain signature violates 1345.81 and is a deceptive act. | Farmers: Transactions between insurers and insureds are expressly excluded from the CSPA’s definition of “consumer transaction,” so issuing an estimate does not create CSPA liability. | Held: Insurer does not engage in a consumer transaction by issuing a repair estimate; R.C. 1345.01’s exclusion applies and R.C. 1345.81(E) does not render insurer liable under R.C. 1345.02. |
| Whether R.C. 1345.01 and R.C. 1345.81 are irreconcilable such that the more specific/ later statute (1345.81) overrides the exclusion | Dillon: 1345.81(E) ties violations to consumer transactions and the statute should be read to permit CSPA remedies against insurers who issue estimates without required disclosures/acknowledgments. | Farmers: The statutes are reconcilable; 1345.81(E) expressly conditions CSPA remedies on a consumer transaction as defined in 1345.01, which excludes insurers. | Held: Statutes are reconcilable. 1345.81(E) incorporates 1345.01’s exclusion — it can impose duties on insurers but does not convert insurers into suppliers in a consumer transaction for CSPA damages. |
| Availability of other remedies when insurer violates 1345.81 | Dillon: CSPA damages and trebling should be available against insurer for failing to obtain acknowledgement. | Farmers: Even absent CSPA damages, other remedies (declaratory, injunctive, common‑law claims) remain available under R.C. 1345.09(D),(H). | Held: CSPA damages under 1345.02/1345.09 are not available against insurers via 1345.81(E); other statutory and common‑law remedies remain potentially available. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Barclay’s Capital Real Estate, Inc., 136 Ohio St.3d 31 (2013) (services closely related to a consumer transaction do not by themselves make the provider a party to the consumer transaction for CSPA purposes)
- State v. Everette, 129 Ohio St.3d 317 (2011) (statutes construed as a whole; each part given effect)
- State v. Conyers, 87 Ohio St.3d 246 (1999) (presumption that General Assembly is aware of previously enacted legislation)