State Automobile Mutual Insurance v. Titanium Metals Corp.State Automobile Mutual Insurance v. Titanium Metals Corp.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the court upon our acceptance of a discretionary appeal. It comes to us as an appeal from the trial court’s denial of a
{¶ 2} The underlying complaint in this matter, filed by State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company (“State Auto”) on March 26, 2003, asserted a cause of action in negligence to recoup proceeds that it had paid to State Auto’s insureds following a fire on November 15, 2002. Appellee, Ohio Briquetting, L.L.C., was a tenant in the building in which State Auto’s insureds did business. State Auto claimed that Ohio Briquetting’s failure to inspect the titanium that it used in its briquetting process caused the fire that resulted in the losses.
{¶ 4} Oakwood Village filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint pursuant to
{¶ 5} On September 19, 2003, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss without opinion. Oakwood filed a notice of appeal pursuant to
{¶ 6} “An order that denies a political subdivision or an employee of a political subdivision the benefit of an alleged immunity from liability as provided in this chapter or any other provision of the law is a final order.”
{¶ 7} Arguing that the statute applies prospectively only, Ohio Briquetting moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order. The court of appeals denied the motion without opinion.
{¶ 8} “It is well-established that an order must be final before it can be reviewed by an appellate court. If an order is not final, then an appellate court has no jurisdiction.” Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. (1989),44 Ohio St.3d 17 , 20,540 N.E.2d 266 . “Generally, an order denying a motion to dismiss is not a final order.” Polikoff v. Adam (1993),67 Ohio St.3d 100 , 103,616 N.E.2d 213 . The reason is that a motion to dismiss is a procedural mechanism that tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint. State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1992),65 Ohio St.3d 545 , 548,605 N.E.2d 378 . When considering aCiv.R. 12(B)(6) motion, “a trial court must examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory.” Fahnbulleh v. Strahan (1995),73 Ohio St.3d 666 , 667,653 N.E.2d 1186 . “[T]he movant may not rely on allegations or evidence outside the complaint; otherwise, the motion must be treated, with reasonable notice, as aCiv.R. 56 motion for summary judgment.” State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs.,65 Ohio St.3d at 548 ,605 N.E.2d 378 . Here, Oakwood asserted*542 appellate jurisdiction based uponR.C. 2744.02(C) . Ohio Briquetting argued that the statute applies prospectively only.
{¶ 9} Because the appellate court proceeded to adjudicate the merits of this case, the parties did not appeal the question of the applicability of
{¶ 10} Nevertheless, there is no final, appealable order. The trial court provided no explanation for its decision to deny the motion to dismiss. The court made no determination as to whether immunity applied, whether there was an exception to immunity, or whether
{¶ 11} At this juncture, the record is devoid of evidence to adjudicate the issue of immunity because it contains nothing more than Ohio Briquetting’s third-party complaint and Oakwood’s
{¶ 12} There being no final, appealable order, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider this matter. The court of appeals considered the issue of immunity prematurely. The record below must be developed in order to reach this issue. Therefore, we vacate the judgment of the court of appeals in its entirety and all conclusions regarding the public-duty doctrine. We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment vacated and cause remanded.
Notes
. Am.Sub.S.B. No. 106,149 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3500, 3508-3509.