2014 Ohio 1503
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- After her husband’s 2006 death, Owens went to the Akron Veterans Administration (VA) office to apply only for burial/death benefits; Haynes worked at that office and assisted Owens.
- Owens later received VA benefit checks beginning in 2006; in 2011 the VA informed Owens she had been paid benefits she was not entitled to, cancelled cash benefits, and demanded repayment of over $34,000.
- Owens sued Haynes (and originally the State, later Summit County) alleging fraud, negligence, and intentional misrepresentation, asserting Haynes induced Owens to sign blank application forms, then falsified and filed applications to obtain additional benefits.
- Haynes moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 and that fraud was not pleaded with particularity; the State/Ohio was voluntarily dismissed and Summit County was later named.
- The trial court held Summit County immune and found Haynes immune as to negligence but denied Haynes immunity for fraud and intentional misrepresentation, allowing those claims to proceed.
- On appeal, this Court lacked jurisdiction to review the non-immunity denial (fraud pleading particularity) but reviewed and affirmed the trial court’s denial of immunity to Haynes on the fraud and intentional misrepresentation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could review Haynes’ challenge that fraud was not pleaded with particularity | Owens pleaded fraud with sufficient factual detail (blank forms, falsified entries, motive) | Haynes argued fraud count lacked particularity and should be dismissed | Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction — interlocutory and not part of immunity ruling |
| Whether Haynes, an employee of a political subdivision, is immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) for fraud and intentional misrepresentation | Owens alleged facts showing Haynes acted with dishonest purpose, ulterior motive, and conscious wrongdoing (bad faith/wanton/reckless) | Haynes claimed she merely assisted Owens with applications and did not act in bad faith or recklessly | Affirmed: complaint alleges sufficient facts to invoke the R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) exception (bad faith/wanton/reckless), so immunity was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbell v. City of Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007) (denial of statutory immunity is a final, appealable order)
- Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. McKinley, 130 Ohio St.3d 156 (2011) (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal ruling)
- Anderson v. City of Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (2012) (definitions of wanton and reckless conduct for immunity analysis)
- Moss v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation, 185 Ohio App.3d 395 (2009) (employee immunity framework under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6))