2020 Ohio 1405
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- May 4, 2015 automobile collision involving Perrin and Anne Kelsey; both insured by Cincinnati Insurance. Perrin pursued a first‑party Medpay claim and a third‑party liability claim against Kelsey.
- On May 5, 2015 Perrin assigned her Medpay benefits to Pike Chiropractic without written permission from Cincinnati (contrary to policy terms).
- Cincinnati requested medical bills/records or authorization to obtain them; Perrin (and her counsel) did not provide the requested records or an authorization; Pike later submitted records and bills.
- Perrin sued (May 1, 2017) asserting negligence claims against the Kelseys and contract, bad faith, breach of fiduciary duty, and statutory/regulatory claims against Cincinnati. Two insurer‑related counts were dismissed on a 2017 motion on the pleadings.
- Multiple discovery disputes followed: motions to compel were overruled or limited (June 6, 2018; Aug. 21, 2018; Mar. 12, 2019). Cincinnati moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted it (Apr. 19, 2019). After Perrin settled with the Kelseys, final judgment was entered July 23, 2019; Perrin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cincinnati must produce its liability claims file or permit in‑camera review | Perrin: file is discoverable; info shared between Medpay and liability adjusters is relevant to bad faith/punitive damages; court must do in‑camera review before denying | Cincinnati: file not required; relevance/privilege/work‑product objections; no impropriety shown | Court: overruled motion to compel; no abuse of discretion; Perrin abandoned some counts and sharing was not per se improper |
| Proper scope of depositions of insurer adjusters | Perrin: may question any person with knowledge about Medpay investigation, motives, communications with liability adjuster, and whether liability file was accessed | Cincinnati: questioning must be limited to information actually received/reviewed by Medpay adjuster; work‑product protections apply to certain topics | Court: limited inquiry to information Medpay adjusters received/reviewed; allowed first three topic areas; limitation appropriate |
| Whether insurer must respond to broad second RFPs and permit inspection of internal systems | Perrin: requests were specific, tied to deposition testimony; sought forms, letters, and access to insurer’s internal site/computer | Cincinnati: requests were overly broad, not limited to relevant matters or remaining claims; inspection of internal site not tailored or necessary | Court: overruled second motion to compel as overly broad and not relevant to remaining claims; any error would be harmless |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on Medpay breach and bad‑faith claims | Perrin: she did not refuse to provide authorizations/records; condition precedent not proven by insurer; bad faith is independent of contract claim | Cincinnati: Perrin failed to provide records or authorization so insurer had no obligation to pay; without an underlying contractual obligation to pay, no bad‑faith claim | Court: summary judgment affirmed for Cincinnati — Perrin failed to meet conditions precedent; insurer’s nonpayment not shown to be unreasonable; bad‑faith failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 943 N.E.2d 514 (2010) (discovery orders reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Zoppo v. Homestead Ins. Co., 644 N.E.2d 397 (1994) (bad‑faith claim requires unreasonable refusal to pay claim)
- Staff Builders, Inc. v. Armstrong, 525 N.E.2d 783 (1988) (standard for insurer bad‑faith tied to contractual refusal)
- Unklesbay v. Fenwick, 855 N.E.2d 516 (2006) (claims file discovery and in‑camera review discussed)
- Dresher v. Burt, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996) (summary judgment burden framework for movant)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 526 N.E.2d 798 (1988) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 375 N.E.2d 46 (1978) (three‑part summary judgment test)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 201 (1998) (construing evidence in favor of non‑movant on summary judgment)
- Strock v. Pressnell, 527 N.E.2d 1235 (1988) (elements of breach of fiduciary duty)