Kincaid v. Erie Insurance, 128 Ohio St. 3d 322

Erie Insurance policy covers 'additional payments' including up to $100/day for actual loss of earnings and other defense expenses.
Kincaid was involved in a 2001 automobile accident; Erie defended him and the underlying suit was settled and dismissed.
In 2008, Kincaid sued Erie on claims of breach of contract, bad faith, and declaratory relief, alleging reimbursement for defense-related expenses.
Erie admitted coverage for 'additional payments' but stated Kincaid never requested reimbursement or presented a claim; Erie had not denied payment.
Trial court dismissed on Civ.R. 12(C) grounds; appellate court partially reinstated some claims, citing lack of notice requirements.
Ohio Supreme Court held no justiciable controversy or standing because no claim was presented and no denial by Erie occurred; dismissal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing when no claim presented and no denial	Kincaid asserts standing exists despite no prior claim/denial	Erie argues no controversy without a claim or denial	No standing; no justiciable controversy
Necessity of notice/claims to trigger coverage	Kincaid performed conditions precedent and seeks reimbursement via suit	Erie had not been notified or denied payment	Controversy not ripe; no breach or bad-faith claim

Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (Ohio 1996) (requires actual controversy to support standing)
Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce, 115 Ohio St.3d 375 (Ohio 2007) (standing and de novo review; actual controversy prerequisite)
Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13 (Ohio 1970) (duty to avoid premature advisory opinions; standing basics)
Corron v. Corron, 40 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1988) (actual controversy requirement for standing)
Mid-American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Heasley, 113 Ohio St.3d 133 (Ohio 2007) (actual controversy; Civ.R. 12(C) standards)
Zoppo v. Homestead Ins. Co., 71 Ohio St.3d 552 (Ohio 1994) (claims require cognizable breach or denial to create controversy)