State ex rel. Fair Hous. Opportunities of Northwest Ohio v. Ohio Fair Plan, 2022 Ohio 385

Background

Fair Housing Opportunities of Northwest Ohio (Fair Housing) submitted a public-records request to the Ohio Fair Plan Underwriting Association (OFP) on April 9, 2020 seeking underwriting standards, lists of insured and rejected addresses, and related communications.
OFP responded that it was not a "public agency" subject to R.C. 149.43, citing statutory exclusions (R.C. 101.82) and R.C. 3929.48, but offered limited cooperation and some non‑private information.
Fair Housing filed an original mandamus action (July 10, 2020) seeking an order declaring OFP a public office under the Public Records Act and compelling production of non‑exempt records, plus costs, statutory damages, and attorney fees.
A magistrate concluded OFP is a "public office" under R.C. 149.011(A) because OFP was statutorily created, subject to Department of Insurance oversight and administrative appeals, and only certain records are expressly excluded by statute. The magistrate recommended a writ directing disclosure and awarded costs but denied statutory damages and fees.
The Tenth District Court of Appeals independently reviewed objections, adopted the magistrate's factual findings, overruled OFP's objections, modified minor wording, upheld denial of statutory damages and attorney fees (case of first impression and OFP's prompt/cooperative response), and granted the writ directing OFP to produce all non‑exempt records.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OFP is a "public office" under R.C. 149.011(A)	OFP was statutorily created, regulated by the Superintendent, and therefore meets the statutory definition	OFP is a private association; exempt from "agency" definition for sunset review and thus not subject to public‑records law	OFP is a public office under R.C. 149.011(A); writ granted to produce non‑exempt records
Whether R.C. 3929.48 or other statutes exempt OFP from public‑records obligations	Plaintiff: R.C. 3929.48 only carves out limited categories; remaining records are public	OFP: R.C. 3929.48 and other statutory language show legislative intent to exclude OFP from public‑records obligations	R.C. 3929.48 creates limited exceptions; its existence supports (does not negate) that other OFP records are public
Whether the functional‑equivalency / quasi‑agency tests apply	Plaintiff: alternatively, OFP is quasi‑agency or functionally equivalent to a public body	OFP: even if test applied, it is not functionally equivalent; plus statutory creation controls	Court: No need to apply functional‑equivalency test because OFP meets the plain statutory definition; Oriana test inapplicable when entity is a public office by statute
Whether statutory damages and attorney fees should be awarded	Fair Housing sought statutory damages and fees for delay/noncompliance	OFP argued good faith and reasonable basis to believe it was not subject to the Act	Court denied statutory damages and attorney fees: OFP's prompt/cooperative response and the matter was one of first impression, so fees/damages discretionary and properly withheld

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (2006) (mandamus is proper remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43)
State ex rel. Data Trace Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer, 131 Ohio St.3d 255 (2012) (public‑records relators need not show lack of adequate remedy at law)
State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391 (2008) (Public Records Act construed liberally in favor of disclosure)
State ex rel. Wadd v. Cleveland, 81 Ohio St.3d 50 (1998) (definition of "promptly" in records context)
State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394 (2019) (reasonableness of response time depends on all pertinent facts)
State ex rel. Strothers v. Wertheim, 80 Ohio St.3d 155 (1997) (doubts about public status resolve in favor of disclosure)
State ex rel. Schiffbauer v. Banaszak, 142 Ohio St.3d 535 (2015) (when entity is a public office by statute, functional‑equivalency test is inapplicable)
State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 110 Ohio St.3d 456 (2006) (functional‑equivalency test for non‑statutory entities)
State ex rel. Bell v. Brooks, 130 Ohio St.3d 87 (2011) (distinguishes historical government function analysis; not a blanket rule that insurance provision is non‑governmental)
Summerville v. Forest Park, 128 Ohio St.3d 221 (2010) (statutory specificity implies exclusion of other exceptions)
State ex rel. Summers v. Fox, 164 Ohio St.3d 583 (2021) (standards for denying attorney fees where a well‑informed official reasonably believes conduct complies with law)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton County, 75 Ohio St.3d 374 (1996) (public‑records law construed liberally; policy of disclosure)