Vinecourt Landscaping v. Kleve
2013 Ohio 5825
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Vinecourt Landscaping, Inc. and Jim and Jill Vinecourt sue Kleve & Associates Insurance for negligent procurement of insurance and breach of fiduciary duties after a 2011 fire left uncovered losses.
- Vinecourts relied on Kleve for purchasing and updating a policy covering business personal property, building, and tools/equipment.
- Policy updates in 2006-2011 reflected increases based on Vinecourt lists; Vinecourts did not question coverage limits understood from policy and checklists.
- Fire damaged Vinecourt warehouse; uncovered losses exceeded $41,000 for equipment, $120,000 for building, and over $300,000 for business interruption.
- Trial court granted summary judgment concluding no fiduciary duty and limitations bar, but court later addressed accrual concepts for professional negligence and fiduciary duty claims.
- Appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded; one judge dissented on fiduciary relationship and equipment coverage issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the claim accrue under R.C. 2305.09 for professional negligence? | Kunz delayed-damages rule applies. | Kunz controls accrual when damages occur. | Accrual occurred at damage in January 2011; not barred by statute. |
| Did breach of fiduciary duty also accrue upon damages under R.C. 2305.09? | Kunz applies to fiduciary claims. | Limitations run from negligent act. | Accrual at January 2011 damages; statute not bar. |
| Was there a fiduciary relationship between Vinecourts and Kleve to create enhanced duties? | Informal relationship implied trust and reliance. | Insurance agent-client relationship is ordinarily not fiduciary. | No fiduciary relationship as a matter of law; no fiduciary breach established. |
| Did Kleve's failure to provide adequate coverage breach duties regarding tools and equipment? | Klee failed to deliver full coverage per Vinecourts’ instructions. | Kleve relied on Vinecourts to specify coverage; checklists show existing and potential coverages. | Issues regarding inadequate limits contested; appellate court found waiver issues and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kunz v. Buckeye Union Ins. Co., 1 Ohio St.3d 79 (1982) (delayed-damages rule for professional negligence not always applicable when accrual tied to damages)
- Investors REIT One v. Jacobs, 46 Ohio St.3d 176 (1989) (limited discovery rule for certain professional negligence claims under R.C. 2305.09)
- Flagstar Bank v. Airline Union’s Mortgage Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 529 (2011) (professional negligence accrues on the negligent act; delayed-damages rule not universally applied)
- Auckerman v. Rogers, 2012-Ohio-23 (2012) (appellate view that Kunz may have been implicitly overruled in some contexts)
- Kuntz, Kunz, 1 Ohio St.3d 79 (1982) (establishes delayed-damages rule for professional negligence)