Estate of Brummitt v. Ohio Mut. Ins. Group
2017 Ohio 8507
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2011 Bobby Brummitt (individually and as executor of Faye Brummitt’s estate) sued the negligent driver and OMIG (the UIM carrier) for damages, declaratory relief, and bad-faith insurance claims arising from a 2010 collision that later contributed to Faye’s death.
- The trial court granted OMIG’s Civ.R. 42(B) motion to bifurcate: liability/damages were tried first; bad-faith claims were reserved for a later trial.
- An April 2013 jury returned a verdict on the damages/compensatory phase in favor of Bobby/estate; that judgment included Civ.R. 54(B) language and was appealed by OMIG.
- After the damages phase, the estate filed a notice voluntarily dismissing the estate’s bad-faith claim against OMIG. Bobby later tried his own bad-faith claim to verdict in January 2016 (that verdict and appeal are separate).
- OMIG moved for dismissal/summary judgment in a later class-action complaint filed by the estate, arguing the estate’s voluntary dismissal was ineffective because trial had already commenced (bifurcated trial), converting the dismissal into an adjudication on the merits under Civ.R. 41(B)(3).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for OMIG, holding the commencement of the first phase of a bifurcated trial cut off the estate’s right to unilaterally dismiss the remaining bad-faith claim without prejudice; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a remaining claim under Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) after a bifurcated trial’s first phase has been tried | Brummitt argued the bad-faith claim had not commenced for trial and thus she could dismiss it without prejudice under Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) | OMIG argued the commencement of the first phase (damages) started trial for the entire bifurcated action, so a unilateral dismissal was barred and operates as an adjudication on the merits | Court held commencement of a bifurcated trial’s first phase bars unilateral dismissal under Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a); the notice operated as a dismissal on the merits under Civ.R. 41(B)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Refreshment Services Co. v. Cleveland, 63 Ohio St.2d 89 (Ohio 1980) (trial on one claim in a bifurcated action precludes unilateral dismissal of remaining claims)
- Chadwick v. Barba Lou, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 222 (Ohio 1982) (plaintiff may unilaterally dismiss once; subsequent unilateral notice after trial commencement operates as adjudication on the merits)
- Schwering v. TRW Vehicle Safety Sys., Inc., 132 Ohio St.3d 129 (Ohio 2012) (commencement of trial cuts off unilateral dismissal under Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a); court must approve dismissal under Civ.R. 41(A)(2) after trial begins)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (standard of de novo review for summary judgment)