Peters v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Company, 1:24-cv-00199

Plaintiff Mel Peters, in his 80s, owned a home in Ohio insured by Auto-Owners under a homeowners policy when he claimed roof damage from a windstorm on April 1, 2023.
Peters filed his insurance claim almost three months after the alleged loss, and allowed insurance investigators (including an adjuster and a forensic engineer) to inspect the property.
The forensic engineer concluded the damage was not caused by wind, but by manual manipulation and earlier wind events; based on this, Auto-Owners began a further investigation.
Auto-Owners made multiple attempts to contact Peters (and, later, his counsel) for further information related to the claim, sending several reservation of rights letters, but received little to no response.
Peters filed suit in state court alleging breach of contract; Auto-Owners removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment, arguing Peters failed to cooperate with the investigation as required by the insurance policy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to Cooperate with Insurer	Peters cooperated by providing property access; no prejudice resulted from any silence.	Peters was silent for months and failed to respond to information requests, thus materially breaching the duty to cooperate.	No summary judgment; factual issue exists; no material and substantial prejudice shown.
Material and Substantial Prejudice	No evidence Auto-Owners was materially prejudiced; investigation proceeded and claim was denied.	Silence prejudiced Auto-Owners, especially given suspicion of fraud/manipulation.	No evidence of prejudice substantial enough to warrant summary judgment.
Covered Cause of Loss	Roofer’s affidavit supports wind damage claim; manual manipulation = vandalism (a covered loss).	Damage not wind-related, possibly fraudulent/manual; but summary judgment motion focused on cooperation, not coverage.	Issue not decided, as motion rests on cooperation/failure to cooperate alone.
Timeliness of Rule 56(d) Discovery	Peters sought more time for depositions, but cancelled/failed to re-notice some; included opposing declaration.	Auto-Owners claimed unopposed motion due to procedural delays and cancellations.	Court declined to treat motion as unopposed; considered plaintiff’s opposition.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: genuine issues of material fact)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard: burden of production)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment inferences, nonmovant favored)
Luntz v. Stern, 135 Ohio St. 225 (insured’s duty of frank disclosure under cooperation clause)
Gabor v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 66 Ohio App.3d 141 (lack of cooperation must result in material/substantial prejudice to insurer)