Walker v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
2015 Ohio 5371
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff William D. Walker, a Tennessee resident, sued Nationwide (Ohio corporation) in Franklin County, Ohio, claiming wrongful discharge in violation of public policy based on testimony and reporting insurance fraud.
- Walker filed an amended complaint and sought leave to file a second amended complaint to emphasize Ohio contacts; the trial court denied leave and granted Nationwide's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.
- Key threshold: Tennessee law provides a one-year limitations period for retaliatory-discharge torts; Ohio provides four years for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
- Nationwide argued Tennessee’s one-year statute should apply (via Ohio’s borrowing statute) because Walker’s claims accrued in Tennessee, barring the suit.
- Walker amended to allege substantive decision-making and communications (compensation, discipline, termination, fraud-report responses) originated at Nationwide’s Columbus headquarters.
- The appellate court reversed dismissal only as to the denial of leave to file the second amended complaint, finding those new allegations could tie the claim to Ohio and overcome the borrowing-statute defense; it remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint was properly dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | Walker: complaint did not conclusively show statute-bar; factual inferences favor plaintiff | Nationwide: allegations show accrual in Tennessee and suit is time-barred under Tennessee law | Affirmed dismissal of the first amended complaint (not conclusively tied to Ohio) |
| Whether trial court erred denying leave to file second amended complaint | Walker: second amended complaint adds allegations tying decision-making to Ohio; not futile | Nationwide: futility because claim still accrued in Tennessee and is time-barred | Reversed: appellate court found second amended complaint alleged sufficient Ohio contacts to proceed |
| Whether trial court impermissibly relied on facts outside the pleadings (conversion to summary judgment) | Walker: court relied on extrinsic facts without notice, so conversion required | Nationwide: court relied on the complaint (caption showing Tennessee residence) | Court did not convert; no indication it considered matters beyond the pleadings; assignment overruled |
| Whether court drew inferences improperly against plaintiff on motion to dismiss | Walker: inferences must be drawn for non-moving party | Nationwide: pleadings did not allege facts tying accrual to Ohio | Affirmed: trial court’s dismissal of the first amended complaint was proper under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pytlinski v. Brocar Prod., Inc., 94 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 2002) (limitations period for common-law wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is four years)
- Morgan v. Biro Mfg. Co., 15 Ohio St.3d 339 (Ohio 1976) (adopts Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws test to determine where a cause of action accrues)
- O'Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 84 (Ohio 1983) (tort claims generally accrue when the wrongful act is committed)
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 109 Ohio St.3d 491 (Ohio 2006) (a statute-of-limitations defense is properly raised on a motion to dismiss only when the complaint conclusively shows the claim is time-barred)
- Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 376 (Ohio 1982) (a Civ.R. 12(B) dismissal based on statute of limitations is erroneous if the complaint does not conclusively show the action is time-barred)