Nazareth Deli, L.L.C. v. John W. Dawson Ins., Inc.
200 N.E.3d 652
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Nazareth Deli owner Hany Baransi had a long-standing business/friendship relationship with agent Michael Palmer of Dawson Insurance; Palmer procured personal and commercial policies from Grange for Baransi/Nazareth.
- From 2014–June 2016 the commercial auto policy showed a covered vehicle and provided matching $1,000,000 liability and UIM limits; after Palmer removed the company-owned vehicle (June 2016) the commercial policy listed no owned vehicle and did not provide UIM coverage for any auto.
- On December 6, 2016 Baransi was severely injured while driving a personal vehicle (a 2012 Mazda) for work; Grange denied UIM coverage under the commercial policy.
- Appellants sued (Dec. 2018) for negligence (negligent procurement/omission), breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding the negligence claim time-barred (accrued in 2012), found no fiduciary duty, and rejected negligent-misrepresentation, and struck medical-affidavits.
- On appeal the Tenth District: reversed the statute-of-limitations ruling as to the negligence claim (holding the negligent act at issue occurred in June 2016), affirmed dismissal of fiduciary-duty and negligent-misrepresentation claims, and remanded for proceedings on the negligence claim; interlocutory challenges were rendered moot by remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a fiduciary duty existed between Palmer/Dawson and Baransi | Baransi relied on Palmer for comprehensive insurance advice; long relationship, social ties, premium pickups, and statements of coverage created special trust | Insurance-agent relationship is ordinarily commercial; reliance and friendship alone do not create a bilateral fiduciary understanding | No fiduciary relationship: summary judgment for defendants affirmed on this claim |
| When negligence claim accrued (statute of limitations) | Accrual in June 2016 (when Palmer removed the company vehicle and allegedly failed to disclose the UIM gap) or at injury (Dec. 2016) under Kunz | Accrual in 2012 when the Mazda was placed on the personal policy and commercial policy already excluded it; 4‑year limitations bars claim | Accrual in June 2016 for the negligence theory asserted (failure/omission in 2016); trial court’s 2012 accrual ruling reversed and negligence claim remanded |
| Negligent misrepresentation — did Palmer make actionable false statements? | Palmer told Baransi he was “covered in every way,” that commercial policy matched liability/UIM limits, and $1M coverage applied to vehicles he drove for work | Any statements were true as to available liability/non‑owned coverage; plaintiff failed to read policies so reliance was unjustified; statements were non‑specific/puffery | No genuine issue on negligent-misrepresentation: summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Misc. interlocutory rulings (motion to strike medical affidavits; denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment; deposition issues) | Affidavits established injury/damages; MSJ against tortfeasor and other discovery rulings were wrongly denied | Court properly struck affidavits as not necessary to then-pending issues; MSJ against non‑party improper; deposition dispute resolved below | Interlocutory issues rendered moot by remand; trial court may revisit them on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Kunz v. Buckeye Union Ins. Co., 1 Ohio St.3d 79 (1982) (applied delayed-damage rule to negligent procurement of insurance; accrual at time of loss)
- Investors REIT One v. Jacobs, 46 Ohio St.3d 176 (1989) (professional negligence accrues when the negligent act is committed)
- Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union's Mtge. Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 529 (2011) (discovery and delayed-damage rules do not apply to professional negligence; accrual when negligent act occurs)
- LGR Realty, Inc. v. Frank & London Ins. Agency, 152 Ohio St.3d 517 (2018) (negligent procurement of insurance accrues when the agent issues a policy that contains the exclusion; discusses Kunz)
- Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, 69 Ohio St.2d 376 (1982) (describes delayed-damage rule and accrual principles)