LG Mayfield, L.L.C. v. U.S. Liab. Ins. Group
88 N.E.3d 393
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In Feb 2014 agent/producer Eric Eisner (owner of Eisner; agent for IHT) helped Mayfield (Oak & Embers) obtain a USLI general liability/property policy; the policy did not include business interruption coverage. After a June 2014 fire, Eisner told the Garofolis the policy included business interruption coverage.
- Mayfield sued USLI, IHT, and Eisner for failing to obtain business interruption coverage (negligent procurement and related claims).
- USLI moved for summary judgment in Aug 2015; Mayfield opposed but noted some deposition transcripts were not yet in the record.
- IHT and Eisner moved for summary judgment Dec 7, 2015. Mayfield filed a motion for an extension/continuance Dec 28, 2015 seeking more discovery but did not file a Civ.R. 56(F) affidavit or a motion to compel; IHT/Eisner opposed the extension as procedurally defective and asserted privilege.
- The trial court denied Mayfield’s extension for failing to comply with Civ.R. 56(F), granted summary judgment to USLI, IHT, and Eisner, and this appeal followed. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mayfield complied with Civ.R. 56(F) / whether the court abused discretion in denying its motion for continuance | Mayfield argued it needed limited additional discovery (deposition of Merrilee Stewart and documents) and the court should liberally grant a continuance to permit opposition | IHT/Eisner argued Mayfield failed to invoke Civ.R. 56(F) properly because it did not file the required affidavit or show particularized reasons; thus denial was proper | Court: Mayfield failed to comply with Civ.R. 56(F) (no affidavit); trial court did not abuse discretion in denying the extension (affirmed) |
| Whether filing the extension motion stayed Mayfield’s time to respond or denied due process when court ruled without giving additional time | Mayfield contended the extension motion tolled its response time and the court should have given more time to respond after ruling on the extension | Defendants: once a Civ.R. 56(F) motion is deficient the court may rule on summary judgment; Mayfield had opportunity to oppose and elected not to timely do so | Court: No due process violation; Mayfield had chance to oppose and the court properly ruled after denying the defective extension (affirmed) |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on negligence/negligent procurement against IHT/Eisner and contract/reformation against USLI | Mayfield argued Garofolis asked Eisner to obtain business interruption coverage and that created triable issues (and that Eisner/USLI made oral promises; reformation or agency issues exist) | IHT/Eisner and USLI argued the record lacks admissible evidence showing the initial request to procure BI coverage or that Eisner was acting as USLI’s agent at the time; plaintiffs didn’t produce affidavits/depositions on that nexus | Court: Summary judgment for IHT/Eisner reversed as to negligence (Garofoli’s deposition excerpts reasonably infer request and negligence — material fact exists). Summary judgment for USLI affirmed (no admissible evidence showing Eisner acted as USLI’s agent at time of alleged promise or that request was made; reformation inequitable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gates Mills Inv. Co. v. Pepper Pike, 59 Ohio App.2d 155 (8th Dist. 1978) (Civ.R. 56(F) affidavit requirement explained)
- State ex rel. Coulverson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 62 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1991) (motion for continuance to conduct discovery under Civ.R. 56(F) must be supported by affidavit)
- Damon’s Missouri, Inc. v. Davis, 63 Ohio St.3d 605 (Ohio 1992) (distinguishing broker vs. agent and when broker becomes insurer’s agent)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment burden-shifting and need for evidentiary materials to create genuine issue)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for whether evidence requires submission to a jury)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co., 64 Ohio St.2d 116 (Ohio 1980) (trial court may not weigh evidence or select among reasonable inferences on summary judgment)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (Ohio 1992) (all doubts must be resolved in nonmoving party’s favor on summary judgment)