State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Helminiak
Decision Date | 28 April 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 94-2710,94-2710 |
Citation | 74 Ohio Misc.2d 91,659 N.E.2d 385 |
Parties | STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY v. HELMINIAK et al. * |
Court | Ohio Court of Common Pleas |
Balk, Hess & Miller, and Ronald V. McCourt, Toledo, for Richard L. and Candace A. Helminiak.
Fuller & Henry, Martin D. Carrigan, Daniel T. Ellis and Margaret G. Beck, Toledo, for John F. and Susan M. Kieffer.
This declaratory judgment action is before the court upon a motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm"). Upon consideration of the pleadings, the competent summary judgment evidence, the written arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, I find that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part.
The following facts are pertinent to this motion. In 1992, John and Susan Kieffer purchased a parcel of real estate from defendants Richard L. and Candace Helminiak. The real estate is located in a subdivision in Springfield Township, Ohio, known as Stone Oak Country Club Plat 1. The property runs along a ditch known as Drennan Ditch, and beyond Drennan Ditch is a lake. Prior to purchasing the property, having lake access in mind, Mr. Kieffer asked Mr. Helminiak if construction of a bridge over Drennan Ditch would be allowed. Mr. Helminiak replied that he would check with Robert Cavalear of the Architectural Control Committee of the Stone Oak Homeowners' Association. Mr. Helminiak reported back to Mr. Kieffer that a bridge would be allowed. 1 The Kieffers subsequently purchased the lot and had a home constructed on the lot. They then began construction of the bridge and the Stone Oak Homeowners' Association asked them to remove it. After many months of discussion at homeowners' association meetings, the Kieffers' bridge was forcibly removed, causing minor damage to the bridge itself.
The Kieffers sued several individuals and entities, including Richard L. and Candace Helminiak. 2 The claims against the Helminiaks in the underlying suit are misrepresentation, trespass, and conversion. The fifth cause of action seeks recission of the purchase agreement because of the alleged misrepresentation. Upon being served with the complaint in the underlying suit, the Helminiaks notified State Farm, their homeowners' insurance carrier. (The Helminiaks also have an umbrella policy with State Farm.) State Farm then filed the instant complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify the Helminiaks with respect to the underlying suit. It now moves for summary judgment on its complaint. Both the Kieffers and the Helminiaks oppose the motion.
The general rules governing motions for summary judgment filed pursuant to Civ.R. 56 are well established. In Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 8 O.O.3d 73, 74, 375 N.E.2d 46, 47, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated the requirements that must be met before a motion for summary judgment can be granted:
However, in Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 108, 570 N.E.2d 1095, paragraph three of the syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio held imposed a burden on the nonmoving party as well. It stated:
See, also, Sibberson v. Mercy Hosp. (Mar. 31, 1989), Lucas App. No. L-88-236, unreported, 1989 WL 29846.
The Sixth District Court of Appeals has consistently held that motions for summary judgment should be granted with caution in order to protect the nonmoving party's right to trial. As stated by the court in Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co. (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 7, 14-15, 13 OBR 8, 16, 467 N.E.2d 1378, 1386:
(Citations omitted.) See, also, Bowlds v. Smith (1961), 114 Ohio App. 21, 29, 18 O.O.2d 305, 309-310, 180 N.E.2d 184, 189-190.
The sole issue is whether State Farm is entitled to a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the Helminiaks in the underlying suit. The general test for determining whether an insurer has a duty to defend an insured has been set out in Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trainor (1973), 33 Ohio St.2d 41, 62 O.O.2d 402, 294 N.E.2d 874. According to the Ohio Supreme Court:
"The test of the duty of an insurance company, under a policy of liability insurance, to defend an action against an insured, is the scope of the allegations of the complaint in the action against the insured, and where the complaint brings the action within the coverage of the policy the insurer is required to make a defense, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the action or its liability to the insured." (Citations omitted.) Trainor, supra, paragraph two of the syllabus.
Later case law established that if the underlying complaint does not clearly bring the allegations within coverage, the test is whether the allegations state a claim that is "arguably or potentially" within the policy's coverage. Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 177, 9 OBR 463, 459 N.E.2d 555, syllabus. Subsequent case law has limited the holding in Willoughby Hills. Now, according to the Sixth District Court of Appeals, the test for determining an insurer's duty to defend depends on the breadth of representation offered by the insurer. Bay Mfg. Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (Feb. 5, 1993), Erie App. No. E-92-22, unreported, 1993 WL 24670. Citing Preferred Risk Ins. Co. v. Gill (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 108, 30 OBR 424, 507 N.E.2d 1118, the court in Bay Manufacturing noted that where the insurer agrees to defend even if the allegations in the underlying complaint are groundless, false, or fraudulent, then a determination of the duty to defend focuses solely on the allegations within the four corners of the underlying complaint. If the allegations on the face of the complaint state a claim arguably or potentially within the policy's coverage, then the insurer must accept the defense. See, also, Sanderson v. Ohio Edison Co. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 582, 635 N.E.2d 19, paragraph one of the syllabus.
If, on the other hand, the "groundless, false, or fraudulent" language does not appear in the policy, the determination of the duty to defend is not limited to the allegations in the underlying complaint and, in order to defeat coverage, the insurer may offer extrinsic evidence of the "true facts" of the underlying complaint. Bay Mfg., supra. In this case, the policies at issue do not contain the "groundless, false or fraudulent" language. Therefore, all competent summary judgment evidence will be considered in determining whether a duty to defend and/or indemnify exists.
The homeowner's policy (# 35-69-2016-1) provides:
"Occurrence" is defined as " * * * an accident, including exposure to conditions," which results in bodily injury or property damage during the policy period. "Property damage" is defined as:
(Emphasis in original.)
The parties appear to agree that the only relevant exclusions are 1.a. (1) and (2), which read:
Similarly, the umbrella policy (# 35-11-9361-6) provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. v. Metropolitan Baptist Church
...held that because a negligent misrepresentation was unintentional, it was, thus, accidental. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Helminiak, 74 Ohio Misc.2d 91, 659 N.E.2d 385, 389 (C.P.1995). The Supreme Court of New Jersey observed that insurers generally must defend an insured accused of reckle......
-
Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. v. LEXINGTON INS.
...Ins. Co., 980 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.Ct.App.1998)(representation that residence not located in flood plain); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Helminiak, 74 Ohio Misc.2d 91, 659 N.E.2d 385 (Com.Pl.1995)(representation that bridge could be However, these cases represent the minority view. In M.L. Foss, t......
-
Valley Ford Truck, Inc. v. Phoenix Ins. Co.
...of the policy. In arguing that the negligent misrepresentation is an “accident,” the Plaintiffs rely heavily upon State Farm v. Helminiak, 659 N.E.2d 385 (Ohio Comm.Pl.1995). In that decision, the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas held that a vendor's allegedly negligent misrepresentation ......
-
Williams v. Oeder
... ... to or be for the benefit of any person other than the state, and sections 3704.01 to 3704.07 of the Revised Code do not ... where cement plant released dust and smoke over farm). Trespass has often been defined in terms of a direct or ... ...
-
APPENDIX 22
...Co., 724 N.E.2d 151 (Ill. App. 1999) Sheets v. Brethren Mut. Ins. Co., 679 A.2d 540 (Md. 1996) State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Helminiak, 659 N.E.2d 385 (Ohio Com. Pl. 1995) Trustees of Tufts Univ. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 616 N.E.2d 68 (Mass. 1993) Waste Management of Carolinas, Inc. v.......