MARK ENGELHART, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BRENT BLUETT, Defendant, and GRANGE INSURANCE, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NO. C-160189
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
October 7, 2016
2016-Ohio-7237
TRIAL NO. A-1306335
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 7, 2016
Cetrulo, Mowery & Hicks, PSC, and T. Lawrence Hicks, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, LLP, Jonathan P. Saxton and James J. Englert, for Defendant-Appellant.
{1} Defendant-appellant Grange Insurance, whose actual nаme is Grange Mutual Casualty Company (“GMCC“), appeals from a decision of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas overruling its
{2} The record shows that plaintiff-appellee Mark Engelhart was severely injured in an accident caused by Brent Bluett. He originally filed a complaint naming only Bluett as a defendant. Bluett‘s insurance paid the $15,000 limits of the policy and Bluett also contributed $25,000. But Engelhart‘s damages exceeded that amount.
{3} The trial cоurt granted Engelhart leave to file an amended complaint against GMCC, his own insurance carrier, seeking to recover under the uninsured/underinsured-motorist coverage. The caption of the аmended complaint listed “Grange Insurance” as a defendant. “Grange Insurance” is a trade name of GMCC. Nevertheless, the body of the amended complaint referred to “Grange Mutual Casualty Cоmpany.”
{4} Engelhart served Grange‘s statutory agent, CT Corporation System (“CT“). The record shows that CT received service on May 21, 2015. Eight days later, CT sent a letter to Engelhart‘s counsel, which stated:
Our records indiсate that we represent more than one entity beginning with the name: (Grange Insurance). In order that we may properly process the enclosed documents(s), we must be provided with the full name of the entity for which it is intended. Should you make this
determination, please note the full name of the entity on the envelope, return the document(s) to us and we will be glad to forward it on.
{5} As the letter had requеsted, Engelhart‘s counsel mailed the appropriate documents and wrote the name “Grange Mutual Casualty Company” on the return envelope supplied by CT. He received no respоnse until June 18, 2015, when CT sent a letter incorrectly stating that it was not the statutory agent “for an entity by the name of Grange Mutual Casualty Company.”
{6} When GMCC did not respond to the complaint, Engelhart filed a motion for a default judgment, which the trial court granted. The court held a hearing on damages. Evidence at the hearing showed that Engelhart had incurred medical bills of $31,598.68 and had continued pain and suffering due to his injuries. Bluett‘s insurance carrier had paid $15,000, the limits on his policy, and Bluett had paid $25,000 out of his personal funds. At the time of the accident, Engelhart had $250,000 of underinsured-motorist coverage under his policy with GMCC. The сourt determined that Engelhart had damages exceeding $250,000. Because he had received $40,000 from Bluett and his insurer, the court awarded judgment against GMCC in the amount of $210,000. The court journalized its findings on August 27, 2015.
{7} On October 15, 2015, GMCC filed a
{9}
{10} The purpose of
{11} GMCC relies upon Patterson v. V & M Auto Body, 63 Ohio St.3d 573, 574, 589 N.E.2d 1306 (1982), in which the Supreme Court stated that if the
{12} Further, while GMCC was referred to in the caption as Grange Insurance, it was referred to in the body of the complaint by the correct name three times. The caption of the case is not controlling. It is the substance of a pleading that determines its operative effect. Ellis v. Ge, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-990775, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4471, *9 (Sept. 29, 2000). Courts can look to the body of the complaint to determine the parties to the complaint. See Auer v. Paliath, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27004, 2016-Ohio-5353, ¶ 43; Briggs v. Wilcox, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98364, 2013-Ohio-1541, ¶ 37; Shelton v. LTC Mgmt. Servs., 4th Dist. Highland No. 03CA10, 2004-Ohio-507, ¶ 7. Thus, even if we were to apply Patterson, the complaint as a whole shows that Engelhart named the proрer party. The clerical error in the caption did not deprive the court of jurisdiction. We, therefore, overrule GMCC‘s first assignment of error.
{13} In its second assignment of error, GMCC contends that the trial сourt erred in overruling its
{15} In this case, Engelhart served the complaint on GMCC‘s statutory agent as required by
{16} To prevail on a
{18} GMCC sought relief from judgment under
{19} Further, “[t]he concept of ‘excusable neglect’ must be construed in keeping with the proposition that
{21} A defendant need only allege a meritorious defense, not prove that it will ultimately prevail on that defense. Rose Chevrolet, 36 Ohio St.3d at 20, 520 N.E.2d 564; Watts v. Forest Ridge Apts. & Town Homes, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060079, 2007-Ohio-1176, ¶ 9. Though the movant need not present evidence to support the defense, he or she must specifically allege operative facts that would warrant the relief requested. Rose Chevrolet at 20; Madison Designs v. Fifth Third Bank, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-970181, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1906, *8-9 (May 1, 1998).
{22} In its motion before the trial court, GMCC‘s primary argument was that Engelhart had not sued the proper party, an argument which we have found meritless. Nevertheless, it also argued that Engelhart‘s complaint was not timely filed. It pointed to policy language stating that any suit against it for uninsured/underinsured-motorist coverage “will be barred unless commenced within 3 years * * * after the date of the accident causing thе bodily injury.”
{23} According to the complaint, the accident arguably occurred on May 20, 2011, but the amended complaint was not filed until May 13, 2015. Courts have sometimes upheld certain types of time limitations in uninsurеd/underinsured
{24} Because GMCC met all the requirements for the granting of its
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
HENDON and MOCK, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.