Engelhart v. Bluett
2016 Ohio 7237
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Engelhart sued Bluett for injuries; Bluett’s insurer paid policy limits and Bluett paid additional funds, but damages exceeded those payments.
- Engelhart obtained leave to amend and filed an amended complaint naming “Grange Insurance” (trade name) in the caption and referring to Grange Mutual Casualty Company (GMCC) in the body.
- The amended complaint was served on CT Corporation System (CT), GMCC’s statutory agent; CT acknowledged multiple similarly named entities and initially requested clarification, then later (incorrectly) told plaintiff’s counsel it was not the agent for Grange Mutual Casualty Company.
- GMCC did not answer; Engelhart obtained a default judgment after a damages hearing and the court entered judgment against GMCC for $210,000.
- GMCC filed a timely Civ.R. 60(B) motion asserting lack of proper service (and that the caption named a non-legal entity); the trial court denied relief and corrected the caption.
- On appeal, the court affirmed that suing by trade name was permissible but reversed the denial of Civ.R. 60(B) relief, finding excusable neglect by GMCC’s agent and that GMCC alleged a meritorious defense (statute-of-limitations argument), so relief should be granted and the default set aside.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether captioning defendant by trade name deprived the court of jurisdiction | Engelhart: R.C. allows suit against trade/fictitious names; body named GMCC | GMCC: "Grange Insurance" is not a legal entity; caption error means no proper service | Court: Trade-name suit valid; body of complaint identified GMCC; no jurisdictional defect from caption error |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief should be granted to set aside default judgment | Engelhart: default judgment valid because service on statutory agent complied with Civ.R. 4.2(F) | GMCC: never received actual notice because agent failed to forward papers; excusable neglect; meritorious defense (limitations) | Court: Service presumed proper but GMCC showed excusable neglect (agent’s mistake) and pled operative facts of a meritorious defense; trial court erred in denying 60(B) relief — default must be set aside |
Key Cases Cited
- Family Med. Found., Inc. v. Bright, 96 Ohio St.3d 183 (2002) (R.C. permitting suit against trade/fictitious names supports suing by trade name)
- Patterson v. V & M Auto Body, 63 Ohio St.3d 573 (1992) (judgment against nonlegal entity is void)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (standards for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (motions to set aside default rest in trial court’s discretion; cases decided on merits)
- Barbee v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 130 Ohio St.3d 96 (2011) (enforceability of certain policy time limitations)