Robson v. Quentin E. Cadd Agency

• Decision Date: 10 November 2008
• Docket Number: No. 07CA26.,07CA26.
• Citation: 179 Ohio App.3d 298,2008 Ohio 5909,901 N.E.2d 835
• Parties: ROBSON et al., Appellants, v. QUENTIN E. CADD AGENCY et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

901 N.E.2d 835

179 Ohio App.3d 298

2008-Ohio-5909

ROBSON et al., Appellants, v. QUENTIN E. CADD AGENCY et al., Appellees.

No. 07CA26.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Hocking County.

Decided November 10, 2008.

Vickery, Riehl & Alter, and Lawrence A. Riehl, Columbus, for appellants.

Williams & Petro Co., L.L.C., John P. Petro, and Susan S.R. Petro, Columbus, for appellee Quentin E. Cadd Agency.

HARSHA, Judge.

{¶ 1} Walter Robson and Debi Oliver¹ appeal the trial court's decision entering summary judgment in favor of the Quentin E. Cadd Agency on their negligent-procurement claim. They contend that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether Cadd breached its duty to provide the uninsured-/underinsured-motorists ("UM/UIM") coverage that Oliver allegedly requested. Oliver stated that she requested a policy with "full coverage," which she assumed would include UM/ UIM coverage. However, Cadd's agent stated that Oliver requested her to remove UM/UIM coverage from the policy. This is a factual dispute that precludes summary judgment. Moreover, Oliver's failure to read the policy does not preclude her claim. Instead, her failure to read the policy is a matter of comparative negligence that is reserved to the factfinder. Accordingly, the trial court erroneously entered judgment in Cadd's favor.

{¶ 2} However, because Robson cannot demonstrate that Cadd owed him any duty to obtain UM/UIM coverage, the trial court appropriately entered summary judgment in Cadd's favor as it relates to his negligent-procurement claim. Therefore, we sustain the sole assignment of error as it relates to Oliver but overrule it as it relates to Robson. We reverse the trial court's judgment in part and affirm it in part, and we remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTS

{¶ 3} In April 2002, Oliver contacted Cadd to inquire about obtaining a commercial automobile insurance policy for a dump truck. Oliver informed Cadd's agent, Charlotte Cox, that she wanted a "full coverage" policy. Cox subsequently provided Oliver with a quote for insurance that included UM/UIM coverage. According to Cox, Oliver stated that the quote was higher than she desired and requested Cox to issue a policy without UM/UIM coverage. Oliver denies Cox's claim that she advised Cox to remove UM/UIM coverage. In any event, the parties do not dispute that Cadd subsequently procured an insurance policy that clearly stated on the declarations page that UM/UIM coverage was "rejected" and that Oliver never read the declarations page. It also is undisputed that the insurance policy contained an unsigned UM/UIM rejection form.

{¶ 4} Approximately two years after the policy was issued, Oliver's employee, Robson, sustained injuries in an automobile accident involving the dump truck. Oliver and Robson eventually settled their claim against the tortfeasor and then sought UM/UIM coverage under the policy Cadd had procured through Progressive Preferred Insurance Company. Progressive denied the claim. Oliver and Robson then filed a complaint against Cadd and Progressive. They alleged that Cadd negligently failed to procure an insurance policy that contained UM/UIM coverage. They further sought a declaratory judgment that they are insureds under the Progressive policy. Oliver and Robson subsequently dismissed their claim against Progressive.

{¶ 5} Later, Cadd filed a motion for summary judgment. Cadd asserted several grounds to support its motion: (1) Ohio law no longer requires insurers to offer UM/UIM coverage and, thus, Robson and Oliver's claim fails as a matter of law; (2) any claim for negligent misrepresentation is time-barred, and Oliver cannot establish one of the elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim, justifiable reliance, because she failed to read the policy; (3) any claim for negligent procurement fails because Oliver did not read the policy; and (4) Robson and Oliver cannot prove that the absence of UM/UIM coverage proximately caused any alleged losses because Robson was not an "insured" under the policy.

{¶ 6} Robson and Oliver responded that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding their negligent-procurement claim. They asserted that Oliver's account of her discussions with Cox conflicted with Cox's account and that this dispute precluded summary judgment. Robson and Oliver disputed Cadd's assertion that Oliver's failure to read the policy precluded their claim. They further argued that the absence of UM/UIM coverage proximately caused their loss because Robson fits the definition of an "insured" under the UM/ UIM policy provisions.

{¶ 7} The trial court subsequently granted Cadd summary judgment, without explanation. The court's decision reads, in its entirety, as follows: "Upon motion and for good cause shown, the Court grants the motion of the Quentin E. Cadd agency for summary judgment and dismisses all claims of the plaintiffs. The Court finds there is no just cause for delay."

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶ 8} Robson and Oliver raise one assignment of error:

The trial court committed reversible error in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Quentin E. Cadd Insurance Agency when the record presents genuine issues of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment and require jury resolution.

III. DISCUSSION

{¶ 9} In their sole assignment of error, Robson and Oliver assert that the trial court erred by granting Cadd summary judgment. First, they complain that the trial court failed to issue a sufficient rationale for its decision, which they contend permits us to remand the court's judgment for clarification. Second, they argue that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding Cadd's negligence in procuring the UM/UIM coverage that Oliver allegedly requested. Third, they assert that they timely filed their complaint. Fourth, they contend that Robson was an insured under the UM/UIM policy provisions.

{¶ 10} Cadd argues that Robson and Oliver asserted a claim for negligent misrepresentation, not negligent procurement, and that the allegedly disputed facts are not material to a negligent-misrepresentation claim. Cadd further contends that the statute of limitations bars the negligent-misrepresentation claim. Cadd also argues that a negligent-procurement claim fails, because Cadd did not breach its duty and because Oliver's failure to read the policy proximately caused the loss.

A. SUMMARY-JUDGMENT STANDARD

{¶ 11} In reviewing a summary judgment, the lower court and the appellate court use the same standard, i.e., we review the judgment independently and without deference to the trial court's determination. Doe v. Shaffer (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 388, 390, 738 N.E.2d 1243. A summary judgment is appropriate only when (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact; (2) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion when viewing the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party; and (3) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; Bostic v. Connor (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 144, 146, 524 N.E.2d 881; Civ. R. 56(C).

B. TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶ 12} Robson and Oliver first assert that we should remand the trial court's summary-judgment decision because the court failed to offer any explanation for its decision. Their argument is meritless.

{¶ 13} "A trial court is not required to issue a written opinion containing findings of fact and conclusions of law when ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Tiefel v. Gilligan (1974), 40 Ohio App.2d 491, 495, 321 N.E.2d 247. Rather, the trial court need only issue a judgment entry that contains a `clear and concise pronouncement of the Court's judgment' and `a sufficient pronouncement of its decision upon which to review the issues raised by appellants' appeal.'" Powers v. Ferro Corp., Cuyahoga App. No. 79383, 2002-Ohio-2612, 2002 WL 1041850, at ¶ 30, quoting Rogoff v. King (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 449, 632 N.E.2d 977; see also Svette v. Caplinger, Ross App. No. 06CA2910, 2007-Ohio-664, 2007 WL 490161, at ¶ 34; Civ.R. 52. This is so, at least in part, because of the nature of our review, which is on a de novo basis. Accordingly, we do not need a statement of the trial court's rationale to perform our function. While it might be helpful and in some cases even persuasive, the lack of an explanation does not impede our own determination.

{¶ 14} Here, the trial court issued a clear and concise pronouncement of its judgment that is sufficient to review the issues raised on appeal, even if the court did not explain its rationale. Consequently we reject Robson's and Oliver's contention that we should remand the trial court's summary-judgment decision because it failed to articulate a rationale.

C. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION OR PROCUREMENT

{¶ 15} We next address Cadd's assertion that Robson and Oliver's complaint states a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, not procurement.

{¶ 16} Negligent misrepresentation occurs when "`[o]ne who, in the course of his business * * * or in any other transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information.'" Delman v. Cleveland Hts. (1989), 41 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 534 N.E.2d 835, quoting 3 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965) 126-127, Section 552(1); see also Laurent v. Flood Data Serv., Inc. (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 392, 400, 766 N.E.2d 221. Liability for negligent misrepresentation may be based on an actor's negligent failure to exercise reasonable care or competence in supplying correct information. Marasco v. Hopewell, Franklin App. No. 03AP-1081, 2004-Ohio-6715, 2004 WL 2895973, citing 4 Restatement of the ...