Kunz v. Buckeye Union Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 21 July 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 81-1705,81-1705 |
Citation | 1 OBR 117,437 N.E.2d 1194,1 Ohio St.3d 79 |
Parties | , 1 O.B.R. 117 KUNZ et al., Appellants, v. BUCKEYE UNION INS. CO.; Ingram et al., Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Henderson, Deis & Wolf and Larry E. Deis, Hamilton, for appellants.
Beckman, Lavercombe, Fox & Weil, Sidney Weil and Donald C. Moore, Cincinnati, for appellees.
The issues posed within this cause are two-fold. The first query is whether the allegations in appellants' complaint sound in tort and are governed by R.C. 2305.09, the statute of limitations for certain tort claims, or whether the allegations sound in contract and are governed by R.C. 2305.07, the statute of limitations for actions upon a contract not in writing. Second, where such insurance as acquired by the agent for the insured is not as requested by the insured, when does a cause of action accrue for the failure to procure the coverage as requested.
The Court of Appeals determined that the four-year tort statute of limitations contained in R.C. 2305.09 applied to the facts of this cause, and stated in its opinion that:
We conclude that this interpretation of the nature of this action is a correct one. The instant action is roughly analogous to a malpractice action in which a party claims that his accountant, lawyer, or doctor has failed to perform the professional services that had been contractually bargained for. The relationship between the parties herein called for the performance of certain services by the insurance agent, and any breach thereof involved the agent's failure to secure the desired insurance coverage.
In that "[t]he ground of the action and the nature of the demand determine which statute of limitation is applicable" (Peterson v. Teodosio [1973], 34 Ohio St. 2d 161, 173, 297 N.E.2d 113 , and State, ex rel. Lien v. House [1944], 144 Ohio St. 238, 58 N.E.2d 675 ), the Court of Appeals reasonably found that the instant action was grounded in tort.
The Court of Appeals, upon determining that R.C. 2305.09 applied, affirmed the trial court without discussing the second issue raised by appellants concerning when the cause of action accrued. Appellees argue that the statute of limitations began to run in 1970 when the disputed policy was issued, or at the very latest in 1973 when the policy was renewed. Appellees find support in Squire v. Guardian Trust Co. (1947), 79 Ohio App. 371, 72 N.E.2d 137 , where it is stated, at page 389, that:
Appellants urge this court to adopt the "delayed damage" theory rejected in Squire on the ground that prior to 1975 it had not been damaged and, therefore, had no viable cause of action against appellees. Squire is distinguishable from the case at bar in that the misdeeds of the bank directors in Squire caused immediate harm to the bank even though they were not discovered until much later, whereas in the instant case no actual loss occurred until 1975.
This court has not decided a case precisely on point. However, in Austin v. Fulton Ins. Co. (Alaska 1968), 444 P.2d 536, the Alaska Supreme Court considered whether a cause of action for negligent failure to provide coverage for damage due to an earthquake arose when the policy was delivered or when an earthquake caused property damage. In holding that the later date was controlling, the court stated, at page 539, that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Collins v. Sotka
...action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run at the time the wrongful act was committed. Kunz v. Buckeye Union Ins. Co. (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 79, 1 OBR 117, 437 N.E.2d 1194. However, under the discovery rule, which is an exception to the general rule, a cause of action accrues......
-
Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. City of Akron
...an element of injury, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the injury takes place. Kunz v. Buckeye Union Ins. Co. (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 79, 81, 1 OBR 117, 437 N.E.2d 1194. Therefore, the limitations period commences when the victim's land and coextensive rights begin to suf......
-
In re Co.
...S.R. Snodgrass, A.C., 141 Ohio App.3d 583, 752 N.E.2d 335, 338 (2001); Nixon, 599 N.E.2d at 744, citing Kunz v. Buckeye Union Ins. Co., 1 Ohio St.3d 79, 437 N.E.2d 1194, 1196 (1982). The conduct complained of in Counts 1 and 2 occurred in 2003, more than four years prior to the filing of th......
-
In re the Antioch Company, Case No. 08-35741 through 08-35747
...Inc. v. S.R. Snodgrass, A.C., 752 N.E.2d 335, 338 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001); Nixon, 599 N.E.2d at 744, citing Kunz v. Buckeye Union Ins. Co., 437 N.E.2d 1194, 1196 (Ohio 1982). The conduct complained of in Counts 1 and 2 occurred in 2003, more than four years prior to the filing of the Complaint......