Kean v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
2021 Ohio 490
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- Kean owned a Canal Winchester residence insured by Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC).
- In July 2018 Kean discovered water damage/"wet-rot" after a fence installation and filed a claim; CIC adjuster Tod Felton inspected the property.
- The policy included an HR 929 endorsement limiting coverage for "Fungi, Wet or Dry Rot, or Bacteria" to $10,000 per "location" (defined as the residence premises).
- CIC paid Kean $17,617.48 (comprised of $10,000 for wet-rot and $7,617.48 for personal property, less a $1,000 deductible); Kean signed a sworn proof of loss listing the origin as "Water, Fungi Wet/Dry Rot."
- Kean sued for breach of contract, bad faith, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; the trial court granted CIC summary judgment and Kean appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment under Civ.R. 56 | Kean contended the court misapplied Civ.R. 56 and that genuine issues of fact exist about coverage and interpretation | CIC argued the policy language is clear, admissible evidence shows wet-rot damage, and CIC paid policy limits so no material fact dispute remains | Affirmed: court applied Civ.R. 56 correctly; policy unambiguous and evidence established wet-rot and full payment under the endorsement |
| Whether CIC waived defenses or violated R.C. 3929.25 by not inspecting or by continuing to insure | Kean argued CIC waived any construction-defect defense and that inspection/statutory requirements preclude CIC from raising those defenses | CIC argued R.C. 3929.25 applies only to fire/lightning losses, no voiding/denial of policy occurred, and any construction-defect causation is irrelevant to the $10,000 wet-rot limit | Affirmed: R.C. 3929.25 inapplicable; CIC did not attempt to void policy; waiver argument fails; coverage limited by HR 929 regardless of causation |
| Whether CIC acted in bad faith or committed IIED | Kean alleged bad faith in handling/payment and sought emotional-distress damages | CIC maintained it had reasonable justification for limiting payment to policy terms and fully investigated and paid the claim | Affirmed: no evidence of bad faith; IIED claim abandoned on appeal; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Laboy v. Grange Indemn. Ins. Co., 144 Ohio St.3d 234 (contract interpretation; ambiguous policy terms construed to effect parties' intent and in favor of insured)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (summary judgment: moving party's initial burden and nonmoving party's response requirements)
- King v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 208 (ambiguities in insurance policies construed against insurer)
- Zoppo v. Homestead Ins. Co., 71 Ohio St.3d 552 (standard for insurer bad-faith refusal to pay)
- Hoskins v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 6 Ohio St.3d 272 (insurer's duty of good faith in claim handling)