Pomeroy v. Schwartz
2013 Ohio 4920
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Pomeroy (owner of J.P. Agency) served as G&S’s long‑time insurance broker; from 11/2001–11/2002 G&S was self‑insured, then switched to a fully‑insured Humana plan in 11/2002.
- When switching from self‑insured to fully‑insured, separate "trail claims" coverage is required to cover claims incurred before the switch but submitted after it; G&S did not buy that coverage.
- Beginning in Feb. 2003, J.P. Agency paid unpaid trail claims on behalf of G&S (totaling $362,614.04); last payment was made Sept. 11, 2003. Pomeroy testified he paid to retain the client and expected reimbursement by someone (Humana or G&S).
- No demand for reimbursement was made until Apr. 20, 2006 (correspondence from Pomeroy’s son demanding repayment after an outside audit), and a second demand followed May 25, 2006.
- Plaintiffs filed suit on Nov. 16, 2011 asserting breach of oral contract, unjust enrichment (6‑year statute), and conversion (4‑year statute). Defendants moved for summary judgment on statute‑of‑limitations grounds; the trial court granted it and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did breach‑of‑oral‑contract claim accrue? | Pomeroy: accrual on Apr. 20, 2006 (first demand); payments were a loan due on demand. | Defendants: accrual on Sept. 11, 2003 (date of last payment); plaintiff had immediate right to seek reimbursement. | Accrual was Sept. 11, 2003; breach claim time barred. |
| Does discovery rule delay accrual of contract claim? | Pomeroy: discovery rule should toll accrual because injury wasn’t discovered until 2006. | Defendants: discovery rule not applicable to breach of contract claims here. | Discovery rule not applied to extend accrual; not a latent injury case. |
| Were the payments loans repayable on demand? | Pomeroy: characterized payments as loans, so statute begins on demand (2006). | Defendants: no evidence of loan terms, interest, or contemporaneous agreement to repay on demand. | No evidence supports a loan; accrual begins on date funds were advanced. |
| When did unjust enrichment claim accrue? | Pomeroy: accrual when retention became wrongful (Apr. 20, 2006 when demand was refused). | Defendants: accrual when money was retained under unjust circumstances (Sept. 11, 2003). | Accrual was Sept. 11, 2003; unjust enrichment claim time barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., Inc., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (summary judgment standard) (sets Civ.R. 56 framework for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (summary judgment burden) (movant must point to evidence; nonmovant must set forth specific facts)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo review) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Norgard v. Brush Wellman, 95 Ohio St.3d 165 (discovery rule) (explains discovery rule for accrual in injury cases)
- Palm Beach Co. v. Dun & Bradstreet, 106 Ohio App.3d 167 (unjust enrichment accrual) (unjust‑enrichment claim accrues when money is retained under unjust circumstances)
- Thomas v. Kramer, 194 Ohio App.3d 70 (loan accrual rule) (where oral loan exists, accrual may be when borrower refuses to pay after demand)
- Berry v. Lupica, 196 Ohio App.3d 687 (demand for repayment) (if oral debt has no repayment date, accrual may be on demand)