2022 Ohio 3805
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Selective sued Bronco in subrogation after Bronco’s employee allegedly backed a dump truck into Selective’s insured’s parked car; Selective paid $4,633.45 (insured paid $500 deductible).
- Selective moved for a default judgment on October 26, 2021; the trial court entered default judgment November 1, 2021.
- Bronco moved under Civ.R. 60(B) to set aside the default judgment, alleging it had emailed the complaint to its insurer but the insurer never received it; Bronco presented no documentary evidence at the hearing.
- At the hearing Bronco’s counsel argued Bronco had a meritorious defense (insured parked in a no-parking zone; arbitration with Bronco’s insurer), but offered no proof of the alleged notice email or internal handling procedures.
- The trial court granted Bronco’s 60(B) motion, finding Bronco had not received the default-judgment motion before entry and that Bronco had a potential meritorious defense; the court did not make a factual finding of excusable neglect.
- The appellate court reversed, holding Bronco produced no evidence of excusable neglect under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and concluding the trial court abused its discretion; the case was remanded to reinstate the default judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting relief under Civ.R. 60(B) without a finding of excusable neglect | Selective: Bronco offered no evidence of excusable neglect; court must find excusable neglect under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) | Bronco: it promptly forwarded the complaint to its insurer (email) and thus neglect was excusable | Reversed — no evidence of excusable neglect; trial court abused its discretion in granting relief |
| Whether forwarding a complaint to an insurer, without proof, establishes excusable neglect | Selective: unproven forwarding is insufficient; negligent internal procedures are not excusable | Bronco: forwarding to insurer demonstrates prompt notice and excusable neglect | Held for Selective — Bronco produced no proof or details of any email or process; no excusable neglect established |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B)(5) supplies an independent basis for relief | Selective: Bronco’s arguments under (5) mirror (1) and (5) does not apply when a specific provision covers the ground | Bronco: alternative request for relief under (5) | Held for Selective — (5) applies only if (1)-(4) do not; Bronco relied on (1)-type arguments, so (5) inapplicable |
| Whether default judgment should be reinstated | Selective: yes, because 60(B) relief was improperly granted | Bronco: no, should remain set aside | Held: default judgment to be reinstated; matter remanded to trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (sets three-prong Civ.R. 60(B) test)
- Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243 (1985) (factors for determining whether neglect is excusable)
- Scheper v. McKinnon, 177 Ohio App.3d 820 (2008) (notifying insurer but taking no further action did not justify relief)
- Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman, 5 Ohio St.3d 64 (1983) (60(B)(5) applies only when (1)-(4) do not; grounds must be substantial)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (1994) (movant must satisfy all Civ.R. 60(B) requirements)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (1987) (abuse-of-discretion standard for review of 60(B) rulings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion as unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable)