Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-2560,93-2560 |
| Citation | 72 Ohio St.3d 415,650 N.E.2d 863 |
| Parties | KENTY, Appellant, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIUM INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. The tort of tortious interference with a contractual relationship is recognized in Ohio.
2. In order to recover for a claim of intentional interference with a contract, one must prove (1) the existence of a contract, (2) the wrongdoer's knowledge of the contract, (3) the wrongdoer's intentional procurement of the contract's breach, (4) the lack of justification, and (5) resulting damages.
On November 11, 1986, appellant, Barbara Kenty, purchased an automobile with the proceeds of a loan obtained from Bank One, Columbus, N.A. ("Bank One Columbus"). Kenty executed a loan agreement that granted Bank One Columbus a security interest in the automobile as collateral for the loan. Kenty also executed a Notice of Requirement to Provide Insurance ("insurance notice"), which stated:
Upon Kenty's failure to obtain her own insurance, Bank One Columbus obtained collateral protection insurance from appellee Transamerica Premier Insurance Company ("Transamerica") for the years 1986 through 1990 and added the premiums to Kenty's loan balance. The collateral protection insurance coverage included conversion, embezzlement and secretion coverage, mechanic's lien coverage, premium deficiency coverage, repossession expense coverage repossessed vehicle coverage, and repossession storage expense coverage (the "six coverages").
Appellee Bank One Corporation ("Bank One") owns appellee Bank One Ohio Corporation ("Bank One Ohio") and appellee Bank One Wisconsin Insurance Services Corporation ("Bank One Wisconsin Insurance"). Bank One Ohio is a holding company for Bank One Columbus. Transamerica owns appellee Transamerica Premier Insurance Services, Inc. ("Transamerica Insurance").
On July 21, 1992, Kenty filed a class action complaint against appellees in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
The first count of the complaint alleged that appellees had tortiously interfered with the contractual relationship between Kenty and Bank One Columbus. Kenty claimed that appellees had provided Bank One Columbus with insurance coverage to add to the principal of Kenty's loan that Kenty had not agreed to purchase. As a result, Kenty alleged that the premiums Bank One Columbus had added to the principal of her loan exceeded the premiums that she would have been obligated to pay for the coverage required by the insurance notice. Kenty alleged that the insurance notice required her to pay for only property insurance, but that the appellees compelled her to pay for the six coverages.
Kenty also alleged in her complaint that appellees engaged in a scheme where Transamerica issued a certificate of insurance to Kenty that listed an artificially inflated price for the coverages that Kenty was obligated to purchase pursuant to the terms of the insurance notice. Kenty claimed that the price failed to deduct commission amounts paid by Transamerica Insurance to Bank One Wisconsin Insurance for the purchase of the coverage by Bank One Ohio.
In the second count of her complaint, Kenty alleged that when the appellees conspired to charge her for the six coverages and failed to deduct the commissions received by Bank One Wisconsin Insurance from her premiums, appellees engaged in an unlawful civil conspiracy.
In count three of her complaint, Kenty alleged that Transamerica breached its duties of good faith and fair dealing which it owed to Kenty.
The trial court granted appellees' motions to dismiss Kenty's complaint, having found no claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
The Court of Appeals for Franklin County affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
This matter is now before this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Malakoff, Doyle & Finberg, P.C., Ellen M. Doyle and Michael P. Malakoff, Specter Law Offices, P.C. and George B. Mahfood, Pittsburgh, PA, Rishel, Myers & Kopech and David A. Kopech, Columbus, for appellant.
Morrison & Foerster and Mark P. Ladner, New York City, Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs and Joel H. Mirman, Columbus, for appellees Transamerica Premier Ins. Co. and Transamerica Premier Ins. Services, Inc.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, David S. Cupps and Anthony J. O'Malley, Columbus, Betts & Perry and Michael J. Betts, Pittsburgh, PA, for appellees Banc One Corp., Banc One Ohio Corp. and Banc One Wisconsin Ins. Services Corp.
Murray & Murray, John T. Murray, Thomas J. Murray and Alicia Wolph, Sandusky, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.
A motion to dismiss can be granted only where the party opposing the motion is unable to prove any set of facts which would entitle him to the relief requested. When reviewing a complaint under this standard, the factual allegations contained in the complaint are taken as true. O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 71 O.O.2d 223, 327 N.E.2d 753; Bridges v. Natl. Eng. & Contracting Co. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 108, 112, 551 N.E.2d 163, 167. When reviewing a case on a motion to dismiss, the reviewing court must construe all material allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party. Phung v. Waste Mgt., Inc. (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 100, 23 OBR 260, 491 N.E.2d 1114. This standard of review must be applied to all three counts of Kenty's complaint to determine whether the complaint was properly dismissed.
The first count of Kenty's complaint alleges that appellees tortiously interfered with Kenty's contract with Bank One Columbus. Before addressing the details of this count, it is necessary to determine whether a cause of action for tortious interference with a contract is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrett v. Fisher Titus Hosp.
...another in person or property, in a way not competent for one alone, resulting in actual damages.'" Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415, 650 N.E.2d 863, 866 (1995) (quoting LeFort v. Century 21-Maitland Realty Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 121, 512 N.E.2d 640, 645 (1987)). "An un......
-
In re National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:03-md-1565.
...in person or property, in a way not competent for one alone, resulting in actual damages.'" Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 650 N.E.2d 863, 866 (Ohio 1995) (quoting LeFort v. Century 21-Maitland Realty Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 121, 126, 512 N.E.2d 640, 645 (Ohio 19......
-
Badri v. Huron Hosp.
...another in person or property, in a way not competent for one alone, resulting in actual damages.'" Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 650 N.E.2d 863 (1995) (quoting LeFort v. Century 21-Maitland Realty Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 121, 126, 512 N.E.2d 640 (1987)). In opp......
-
Maltz v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co.
...Cal.App.3d 1134, 243 Cal.Rptr. 420, 429 (1988)), aff'd, 103 F.3d 138, 1996 WL 683613 (9th Cir.1996); Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415, 650 N.E.2d 863, 866-67 (1995); Miskinis v. Chester Township Park Dist., 112 Ohio App.3d 466, 679 N.E.2d 39, 43 (1996); Universal Co......