Berkley Insurance Co. v. Kent State University, 120618 OHCOC, 2018-00579JD

Docket Nº:2018-00579JD
Opinion Judge:DALE A. CRAWFORD, JUDGE
Party Name:BERKLEY INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff v. KENT STATE UNIVERSITY Defendant
Case Date:December 06, 2018
Court:Court of Claims of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

2018-Ohio-5453

BERKLEY INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff

v.

KENT STATE UNIVERSITY Defendant

No. 2018-00579JD

Court of Claims of Ohio

December 6, 2018

Sent to S.C. Reporter 1/14/19

ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DALE A. CRAWFORD, JUDGE

{¶1} Before the Court is Defendant Kent State University's (KSU) Civ.R. 56 motion for summary judgment which asserts Plaintiff Berkley Insurance Company (Berkley) waived its claims in this case because it failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Article 8 dispute resolution process contained in the parties' contract. In support of its motion, KSU relies on Plaintiff's complaint as well as facts set forth in the affidavit of Michael Bruder, which it submitted with its motion. Berkley filed its brief in opposition, asserting that its obligation to utilize Article 8 never arose because KSU has not completed the back-charge and project close-out process. In support, Berkley submitted the affidavit of Nancy Manno, including several exhibits comprised of correspondence between the parties.

{¶2} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows: Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor.

See also Dresher v. Burt, 1996-Ohio-107, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996). In Dresher, the Ohio Supreme Court held, "the moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP