FDT Group, L.L.C. v. Guaraci
2017 Ohio 663
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- FDT Group (appellant), owned by Filonenko, buys a commercial property in Reynoldsburg and asks operations manager Fisher to obtain insurance.
- Fisher solicited quotes from multiple agents; she contacted defendant-agent Guaraci, who inspected the property and provided a quote that did not include water/sewer backup coverage.
- Fisher did not request water backup coverage, had not visited the property, and conveyed only basic property details; Filonenko did not personally communicate with Guaraci or review the proposal.
- The policy was issued without water backup coverage; a pipe backup in April 2015 caused flood damage, and the insurer denied the claim citing the missing coverage.
- FDT sued Guaraci for negligent placement and negligent misrepresentation; Guaraci moved for summary judgment arguing no fiduciary duty or breach and that FDT failed to request the optional coverage.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Guaraci; the court of appeals affirmed, finding no genuine issue that Guaraci owed a fiduciary duty to recommend water backup coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a fiduciary duty arose between agent and insured, requiring agent to advise on optional water-backup coverage | FDT: Guaraci solicited business, inspected the property, provided templates, and presented expertise—FDT relied on him, creating special trust and a fiduciary duty | Guaraci: Relationship was ordinary commercial; FDT used competitive bidding, decision-maker Filonenko was sophisticated and responsible for coverage decisions; no bilateral understanding of special reliance | Held: No fiduciary duty. Evidence shows ordinary business relationship and no special trust or reliance on Guaraci to advise on optional coverage |
| Whether Guaraci breached any duty by not procuring water backup coverage | FDT: Failure to recommend/procure optional but relevant coverage was negligent | Guaraci: He was not asked to include it; optional coverage is rarely bought on commercial properties; insured must examine policy | Held: No breach because no duty to advise on that optional coverage absent special reliance |
| Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment | FDT: Disputed facts (inspection, communications, templates) create genuine issues for trial | Guaraci: Record shows no evidence of special reliance; he met initial summary judgment burden | Held: No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment appropriate |
| Comparative negligence or failure to read policy defense | FDT: Trial court should not consider comparative negligence first raised in summary judgment | Guaraci: Raised in answer; even so, FDT presented no negligence by Guaraci | Held: Court affirmed judgment based on absence of duty; insured’s obligation to review policy noted as a separate principle |
Key Cases Cited
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (standard for awarding summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant’s initial burden in summary judgment and nonmovant’s burden to show specific facts)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1984) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause)
- Strock v. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St.3d 207 (Ohio 1988) (definition of fiduciary duty arising from special trust and undertaking)
- Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 (Ohio 2006) (agent’s duty when fiduciary relationship is shown)