Kamnikar v. Fiorita
2017 Ohio 5605
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 24, 2014, Cameron Fiorita drove an Escalade into the rear of a parked Toyota Corolla driven by David Kamnikar at a private skating-rink parking lot; Kamnikars allege Cameron admitted fault at the scene.
- Plaintiffs submitted a claim to Encompass (the insurer then identified for the vehicle); Encompass denied the claim, stating its insured was not legally responsible and blaming the Corolla for failing to yield while backing.
- Kamnikars sued the Fioritas and Encompass asserting causes including negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, bad faith, negligent entrustment, and civil conspiracy; Encompass moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
- Trial-court dismissed all claims against Encompass; later, during discovery a Chiller security video caused Cameron to stipulate to negligence and the jury awarded plaintiffs $3,087.05 against Cameron only for damages.
- Fioritas moved for judgment on the pleadings (Civ.R. 12(C)) as to several claims; trial court granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing plaintiffs’ non‑negligence claims against the Fioritas.
- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissals and motion-denial for sanctions; this Court affirmed all rulings and denied insurer’s request for appellate sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims against Encompass for bad faith / related torts survive 12(B)(6) | Encompass failed to properly investigate, misled plaintiffs, and acted in bad faith toward third parties | Ohio law does not recognize third‑party bad‑faith claims against an insurer; plaintiffs are not insureds | Dismissal affirmed: Ohio does not permit third‑party bad‑faith claims against insurer |
| Whether plaintiffs may sue Encompass in negligence for economic losses from insurer's investigation/denial | Encompass’s negligent handling caused plaintiffs economic harm (attorney fees, costs) | Economic‑loss rule bars recovery in tort for purely economic losses absent physical harm or privity | Held: negligence claim barred by economic‑loss rule |
| Whether Restatement §§ 323/324A impose liability on insurer to third parties | Plaintiffs argue insurer’s undertaking to investigate creates duty to third parties under §§ 323/324A | Restatement rules apply where undertaking risks or causes physical harm; plaintiffs allege only economic harm and are not third‑party beneficiaries | Held: §§ 323/324A inapplicable—no physical harm caused by insurer and no third‑party beneficiary status |
| Whether fraud/negligent misrepresentation and related claims against Fioritas and Encompass survive | Plaintiffs claim misrepresentations induced reliance and loss | Plaintiffs did not rely or abandon claims; they retained counsel and pursued suit; allegations insufficient to show reasonable reliance or elements of fraud | Held: fraud and negligent‑misrepresentation claims dismissed for failure to plead justifiable reliance and proximate damage |
| Negligent entrustment against Fioritas | Plaintiffs contend owner entrusted vehicle to inexperienced/reckless driver | Complaint lacked facts showing driver’s incompetence or owner’s knowledge; Cristina not titled owner | Held: judgment on pleadings affirmed—entrustment claims fail as a matter of law |
| Sanctions under Civ.R. 37(C)(2) for failure to admit | Plaintiffs sought fees because defendant denied fault in admissions | Court determined sanctions trigger only if plaintiff had to prove at trial contrary to admission; here defendants admitted negligence before trial | Held: sanctions denied; motion for fees properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Zoppo v. Homestead Ins. Co., 71 Ohio St.3d 552 (Ohio 1994) (insurer owes insured a duty to act in good faith in claims processing)
- Floor Craft Floor Covering, Inc. v. Parma Community Gen. Hosp. Assn., 54 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1990) (economic‑loss rule prevents tort recovery for purely economic loss)
- Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 42 Ohio St.3d 40 (Ohio 1989) (economic‑loss rule articulated in the insurance/contract context)
- Corporex Dev. & Constr. Mgt., Inc. v. Shook, Inc., 106 Ohio St.3d 412 (Ohio 2005) (reaffirming economic‑loss principle)
- Salem Med. Arts & Dev. Corp. v. Columbiana Cty. Bd. of Revision, 82 Ohio St.3d 193 (Ohio 1998) (sanctions under Civ.R. 37(C) reimburse costs incurred proving matters at trial that should have been admitted)
- Williamson v. Eclipse Motor Lines, Inc., 145 Ohio St. 467 (Ohio 1945) (elements for negligent entrustment: permission to drive and owner’s knowledge of driver’s incompetence)
- Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1995) (civil conspiracy is derivative; requires an underlying actionable tort)