History
  • No items yet
midpage
2016 Ohio 3032
Ohio Ct. App.
2016
Read the full case

Background

  • On June 18, 2011, 16‑month‑old Bryant C. Martin was severely injured after being struck by a pickup driven by Steven Wandling; Bryant’s parents were divorced and he was staying with family at the time.
  • Plaintiff (Bryant, through his mother Alana Fraley) sued Wandling and others and sought declaratory relief as to available underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under several policies, including a business auto policy issued by Nationwide Agribusiness to Timothy Condee.
  • The dispositive coverage question was whether Bryant was a “family member” (i.e., a resident of the named insured’s household) under the Nationwide Agribusiness policy at the time of the accident.
  • The trial court bifurcated coverage from liability, resolved cross‑motions for summary judgment, struck certain exhibits as inadmissible or untimely, and granted plaintiff’s motion holding Bryant resided with his maternal grandparents (the Condees) and was therefore an insured under the Condee policy.
  • Nationwide Agribusiness appealed, raising four assignments of error: (1) improperly striking Nationwide’s evidence, (2) denial of Nationwide’s late counterclaim and related amendment timing, (3) trial court lacked a complete policy in the record, and (4) judgment resting on self‑serving testimony.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Fraley/Bryant) Defendant's Argument (Nationwide Agribusiness) Held
Whether the trial court could decide coverage without a complete Nationwide Agribusiness policy in the record The affidavit and policy copy submitted by Condee sufficed; Nationwide failed to timely object Trial court lacked a complete policy as required by Civ.R. 10(D) and summary judgment practice Held: No error — Nationwide waived timely objection and the relevant policy language was before the court; summary judgment proper on record presented
Whether the court abused discretion refusing Nationwide leave to amend to add a counterclaim after deadlines Plaintiff: adding Condee as a defendant was timely, no prejudice to Nationwide Nationwide: counterclaim based on alleged misrepresentations was untimely and prejudicial (discovery closed; motions submitted) Held: No abuse; court permissibly denied Nationwide’s late counterclaim and allowed plaintiff to add Condee as necessary party
Whether the trial court properly struck exhibits (recorded statements, medical and police/employment records) as inadmissible on summary judgment Plaintiff: many of Nationwide’s attachments were unsworn, unauthenticated, hearsay or untimely; should be excluded Nationwide: evidence bore on residency and was improperly stricken Held: No abuse; court correctly excluded unauthenticated or untimely materials under Civ.R. 56(C)/(E) and evidentiary rules
Whether plaintiff met burden to show Bryant was a resident (family member) and thus covered under the policy Fraley: testimony and depositions (Alana, Condees, Tyler, Wandling) show Bryant lived with the Condees with some duration/regularity before the accident Nationwide: documentary indicia (mailing addresses, other records) weigh against residency; testimony was self‑serving/collusive Held: No error; under Ohio’s “resident of household” test (time/duration/regularity), evidence supported that Bryant resided with the Condees and thus was an insured under the policy

Key Cases Cited

  • New Destiny Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. Wheeler, 950 N.E.2d 157 (Ohio 2011) (standard for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
  • Dresher v. Burt, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden; nonmoving party must then show specific facts creating a genuine issue)
  • Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Guman Bros. Farm, 652 N.E.2d 684 (Ohio 1995) (insurance contract interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
  • King v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 519 N.E.2d 1380 (Ohio 1988) (ambiguous insurance provisions construed against insurer)
  • Taylor v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, 528 N.E.2d 968 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987) (definition of “resident of your household”: lives in home for some duration or regularity; not a temporary visitor)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Martin v. Wandling
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: May 11, 2016
Citations: 2016 Ohio 3032; 65 N.E.3d 103; 15CA4
Docket Number: 15CA4
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.
Log In
    Martin v. Wandling, 2016 Ohio 3032