2022 Ohio 4227
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Geico sued Brandy Hicks (and her son Donovan Willis) as subrogee/assignee of its insured for $16,629.50 in vehicle damage allegedly caused when then-17-year-old Willis stole and negligently operated the insured's car.
- Geico filed in Butler County; Hicks moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Civ.R. 12(B)(2)) and for failure to state a claim (Civ.R. 12(B)(6)).
- Butler County transferred venue to Warren County because Hicks admitted she resided in Warren County and the loss occurred there; Warren County denied Hicks’ motions.
- During discovery Hicks invoked privilege objections but admitted her son had previously taken and wrecked a vehicle; Geico produced evidence of Willis’s alleged theft and $16,629.50 in damages.
- Geico moved for summary judgment; Hicks did not file any response. The trial court granted summary judgment: $16,629.50 on negligent supervision and $10,000 under R.C. 3109.09(B), but capped Hicks’s total liability at $16,629.50.
- Hicks appealed four assignments of error; the Twelfth District affirmed the trial court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Geico) | Defendant's Argument (Hicks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction / venue (Civ.R. 12(B)(2)) | Court has jurisdiction because Hicks is a Warren County resident and venue proper under Civ.R. 3(C). | Court lacks jurisdiction; only the court in county of residence may hear the case (she resided in Warren County and action started elsewhere). | Denied Hicks’s motion: Hicks admitted Warren County residency, so trial court had personal jurisdiction and venue was proper. |
| Failure to state a claim (Civ.R. 12(B)(6)) | Complaint alleges facts (son stole vehicle, caused damage; negligent supervision; alternative R.C. 3109.09(B) claim) sufficient to state claims. | Complaint lacks evidentiary support; Geico asks court to assume facts without proof. | Denied Hicks’s motion: on 12(B)(6) court must accept complaint allegations as true; Geico alleged sufficient facts to state actionable claims. |
| Summary judgment / nonmoving party response (Civ.R. 56) | Geico submitted evidence (Hicks’s prior admission, damages) showing no genuine issue of material fact. | Hicks argued Geico misstated filing date and urged caution; claimed discovery responses preclude judgment. | Affirmed: Hicks failed to respond with evidentiary materials to create a genuine issue; summary judgment appropriate. |
| Double recovery / statutory limit and Rule 36 concerns | Geico sought negligent supervision damages ($16,629.50) and statutory parent-liability up to $10,000; trial court imposed both but limited total recovery to $16,629.50. | Hicks argued she could not be held for more than $10,000 under R.C. 3109.09(B) and that Rule 36 was misused based on her discovery responses. | Affirmed: Court may enter judgment on both theories but capped total at amount sought; Rule 36 was not the basis for the judgment and lack of response to summary judgment forfeited appellate claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldstein v. Christiansen, 70 Ohio St.3d 232 (Ohio 1994) (prima facie showing required to establish personal jurisdiction when no evidentiary hearing is held)
- Fraley v. Estate of Oeding, 138 Ohio St.3d 250 (Ohio 2014) (plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction when court rules without an evidentiary hearing)
- Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2010) (personal jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (Ohio 1988) (on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, courts must presume complaint allegations are true and draw inferences for the nonmoving party)
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1991) (a complaint should not be dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) if any set of facts consistent with it would permit recovery)
- Maust v. Meyers Prods., Inc., 64 Ohio App.3d 310 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989) (issues not raised in response to summary judgment cannot be raised for the first time on appeal)