[Cite as Koscielak v. United Ohio Ins. Co., 2020-Ohio-3224.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DEFIANCE COUNTY 

 

ANGELA A. KOSCIELAK, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 4-19-20 

 v. 

UNITED OHIO INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. 

 

Appeal from Defiance County Common Pleas Court 

Trial Court No. 18 CV 44410 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: June 8, 2020 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Ian A. Weber for Appellant 

 Christine N. Farmer for Appellee, United Ohio Insurance Company 
Case No. 4-19-20 

-2- 

SHAW, P.J.

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Angela A. Koscielak (“Koscielak”), brings this 

appeal from the October 16, 2019 judgment of the Defiance County Common Pleas 

Court granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee, United Ohio Insurance 

Company (“United”). On appeal, Koscielak argues that the trial court erred by 

finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact in this case. 

Background 

{¶2} In January of 2015, Koscielak lived at 4163 Cicero Road in Hicksville 

with her husband, Jeff. Koscielak had an insurance policy through United covering 

the premises, a 60 x 80 “pole building,” and personal property.1

 On January 9, 2015, 

Jeff was working in the pole barn when he noticed heavy smoke coming from the 

area above the sink. Jeff stated that he attempted to extinguish the fire with an 

extinguisher, but was unsuccessful so he called the fire department.2

{¶3} A deputy sheriff was the first responder to arrive at the scene and by the 

time he arrived, the pole barn was “fully engulfed.” When the deputy sheriff 

arrived, he observed Jeff and Koscielak attempting to move a motorcycle away from 

the fire. 

{¶4} The Hicksville Fire Department, Edgerton Fire Department, and Farmer 

Fire Department all arrived to fight the fire. Despite their efforts, Koscielak would 

 

1

 The relevant policy covered the period of December 28, 2014, to December 28, 2015. 2

 Koscielak would later state that she came out and used fire extinguishers to try and put the fire out. 
Case No. 4-19-20 

-3- 

later claim the pole building and all the personal property inside was a “total loss.” 

The deputy sheriff’s report indicated that the fire had an undetermined cause, and 

that it was still under investigation at that time. 

{¶5} Koscielak filed a claim with United for the policy limits related to the 

pole building, which were $14,800 for other structure loss, $103,600 for personal 

property loss, and $29,600 for loss of use. 

{¶6} In the months after the fire, United investigated Koscielak’s claim and 

the cause of the fire. United was also seeking an itemized list of the personal 

property purportedly lost. 

{¶7} While the investigation was occurring, in April of 2015 Koscielak and 

Jeff got into a serious argument that led to Jeff being charged with domestic 

violence. Jeff would later claim that Koscielak told him on the night of the 

altercation that she started the fire on purpose while he was inside the pole barn. 

Koscielak and Jeff separated after this fight and were in the process of a divorce at 

the inception of this case. 

{¶8} On August 18, 2015, Jeff was examined “under oath” by United. In the 

examination, Jeff stated that Koscielak’s friends had told him that Koscielak talked 

about starting a fire for the insurance money before she had done it, and that 

Koscielak later told people that she started the fire. Jeff stated that eventually 

Koscielak herself told him that she started the fire. Jeff claimed that Koscielak had 
Case No. 4-19-20 

-4- 

indicated that since Jeff was in the pole building there was an added benefit because 

of a life insurance policy. 

{¶9} On September 1, 2015, United’s attorneys sent a letter to Koscielak 

indicating that United wanted to have her examined under oath on September 14, 

2015. United’s letter cited language from the insurance policy detailing Koscielak’s 

duty to comply, which read as follows: 

B. Duties After Loss 

In case of a loss to covered property, we have no duty to provide 

coverage under this policy if the failure to comply with the 

following duties is prejudicial to us. These duties must be 

performed either by you, [a]n “insured” seeking coverage, or a 

representative of either: 

5. Cooperate with us in the investigation of a claim; 

6. Prepare an inventory of damaged personal property showing 

the quantity, description, actual cash value and amount of loss. 

Attach all bills, receipts and related documents that justify the 

figures in the inventory; 

7. As often as we reasonably require: 

 (a) Show the damaged property; 

(b) Provide us with records and documents we request and 

permit us to make copies; and 

(c) Submit to examination under oath, while not in the 

presence of another “insured”, and sign the same. 
Case No. 4-19-20 

-5- 

(Doc. No. 6, Ex. B). In addition to submitting to an examination under oath, United 

requested that Koscielak provide, inter alia, copies of documents which related to 

any property lost in the fire.

{¶10} Despite scheduling the examination under oath, the examination did 

not take place on September 14, 2015, and Koscielak did not provide the requested 

documentation. The examination was rescheduled for October 5, 2015. Koscielak 

requested that the rescheduled examination take place at the Hicksville Police 

Department, but the department was unable to accommodate the request, thus the 

examination was scheduled to proceed per the prior letter. However, Koscielak did 

not attend the second scheduled examination under oath and she still did not provide 

the requested documentation. 

{¶11} Another letter was sent to Koscielak on October 15, 2015, demanding 

that Koscielak comply with the investigation. 

{¶12} On October 27, 2015, United’s attorneys sent Koscielak yet another 

letter demanding that she provide the requested documentation and advising her that 

if the documents were not received by November 4, 2015, her claim would be denied 

for her failure to comply. 

{¶13} On November 16, 2015, Koscielak was sent a letter denying her claim, 

“based upon the information and evidence discovered during our investigation to 

date, combined with a material lack of cooperation provided by you during our 
Case No. 4-19-20 

-6- 

investigation.” (Doc. No. 6, Ex. G). More specifically, the letter cited Koscielak’s 

failure to provide an examination under oath, her failure to provide an inventory of 

the personal property lost, and her failure to provide requested documentation to 

support her claim. (Id.) The letter contained excerpts of provisions from the 

insurance policy that Koscielak did not comply with. 

{¶14} On June 4, 2018, Koscielak filed a complaint in the Defiance County 

Common Pleas Court requesting that United pay her the policy limits.3

 

{¶15} On July 2, 2018, United filed a “motion for more definite statement” 

requesting a more definite statement of the complaint. United also requested that 

Koscielak produce the insurance contract upon which Koscielak based her claims 

as it had not been attached to the complaint. 

{¶16} On July 12, 2018, Koscielak responded in writing to United’s motion 

for a more definite statement and attached the insurance contract and the deputy 

sheriff’s police report from the date of the fire. 

{¶17} On February 19, 2019, United filed an answer to Koscielak’s 

complaint denying the allegations and asserting ten affirmative defenses including, 

inter alia, that Koscielak failed to comply with terms and conditions of the insurance 

policy, thereby barring her claim. 

 

3

 Statements made in the record indicate that Koscielak had previously filed suit against United but 

voluntarily dismissed that claim, thus this case was a refiling of that claim. 
Case No. 4-19-20 

-7- 

{¶18} On February 26, 2019, United filed a notice to take Koscielak’s

deposition on Wednesday April 24, 2019. Despite not providing United with 

examinations under oath previously, Koscielak’s deposition was taken in this matter 

on the scheduled date. 

{¶19} In her deposition, Koscielak stated that she was, in fact, asked to 

complete the examinations under oath by United but she did not. She indicated that 

she missed the later-scheduled examination because she had gone to Tennessee with 

her daughter and she did not have her mail forwarded. She stated that by the time 

she returned from Tennessee her claim was denied. 

{¶20} Koscielak testified that she thought the fire in the pole building was 

“electrical,” because she thought it started in a wall. She testified that Jeff’s 

statements that she started the fire were false and she indicated she helped Jeff 

attempt to fight the fire. 

{¶21} Koscielak additionally testified that the residence at 4163 Cicero Rd 

had been foreclosed upon and she was no longer the owner. She still wanted 

reimbursed for all her personal property lost in the fire, for the price that it would 

cost to rebuild the pole building, and the loss of use of the pole building. She 

acknowledged that United had provided her with a check for $27,090 for the face 

value of the pole building itself but she had not cashed the check. 
Case No. 4-19-20 

-8- 

{¶22} The next filing in the record was on July 29, 2019. At that time United 

filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that despite numerous requests for 

documentation and a demand for an examination under oath, Koscielak failed to 

substantially or meaningfully comply with United’s investigation. United cited case 

authority stating that an insurer was not obligated to perform under a contract until 

conditions precedent were satisfied such as submitting to an examination under oath 

if requested. See Savage v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-273, 

2008-Ohio-4460. In addition, United argued that Koscielak engaged in intentional 

misconduct and her claim should be denied for that reason. 

{¶23} Over the ensuing months, Koscielak did not file any response to 

United’s motion for summary judgment. 

{¶24} On October 16, 2019, the trial court filed an entry granting United’s 

summary judgment motion finding generally that there were no genuine issues of 

material fact, that United was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and that 

reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion, adverse to Koscielak. It is from 

this judgment dismissing her complaint that Koscielak appeals, asserting the 

following assignment of error for our review. 

Assignment of Error 

The trial court abused its discretion in holding that there were no 

genuine issues of material fact and that the defendant [met] the 

standard for summary judgment. 
Case No. 4-19-20 

-9- 

{¶25} In her assignment of error, Koscielak argues that the trial court erred 

by granting summary judgment to United. Specifically, she claims that genuine 

issues of material fact existed in this case. 

Standard of Review 

{¶26} We review a trial court’s decision on a motion 

for summary judgment de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 

105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996). Thus, this Court conducts an independent review of 

the evidence and arguments that were before the trial court without deference to the 

trial court’s decision. See State ex rel. Sunset Estate Properties, L.L.C. v. Lodi, 142 

Ohio St.3d 351, 2015-Ohio-790, ¶ 6. 

{¶27} Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is appropriate only 

under the following circumstances: (1) no genuine issue of material fact remains to 

be litigated, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) 

viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, reasonable 

minds can come to but one conclusion, that conclusion being adverse to the 

nonmoving party. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66 

(1978). “When seeking summary judgment on grounds that the non-moving party 

cannot prove its case, the moving party bears the initial burden of informing the trial 

court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record that 

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on an essential element 
Case No. 4-19-20 

-10- 

of the non-moving party’s claims.” Lundeen v. Graff, 10th Dist. Franklin, 2015-

Ohio-4462, ¶ 11, citing Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293 (1996). Once the 

moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmovant must set forth specific facts 

demonstrating a genuine issue for trial. Dresher at 293. 

Analysis 

{¶28} At the outset, we note that after reciting the summary judgment

standard in her brief, Koscielak spends two total paragraphs arguing that the trial 

court erred in this matter, citing no case authority whatsoever in support. While a 

lengthier, quantitative argument does not equate to a qualitative argument, App.R. 

16(A)(7) requires an appellant’s argument to contain citations to authorities or parts 

of the record that the appellant relies upon. “It is not the obligation of an appellate 

court to search for authority to support an appellant’s argument as to an alleged 

error.” Harris v. Nome, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21071, 2002-Ohio-6994, ¶ 15, citing 

Kremer v. Cox, 114 Ohio App.3d 41, 60 (9th Dist.1996). 

{¶29} Moreover, we emphasize that Koscielak did not even file a response 

to United’s summary judgment motion at the trial court level. See Whitt v. 

Wolfinger, 4th Dist. Ross No. 14CA3455, 2015-Ohio-2726, ¶ 47, citing Shover v. 

Cordis Corp., 61 Ohio St.3d 213, 220 (1991) (“It is axiomatic that a litigant’s failure 

to raise an issue at the trial court waives the litigant’s right to raise that issue on 
Case No. 4-19-20 

-11- 

appeal.”). Nevertheless, we will review the argument that Koscielak does make in 

the interest of justice. 

{¶30} In her brief, Koscielak claims broadly that the trial court erred by 

finding that the evidence was undisputed that Koscielak failed to comply with the 

terms of the insurance contract and that United was therefore entitled to summary 

judgment. Koscielak contends that, “An allegation that terms and conditions were 

not complied with, absent further evidence, is not enough to satisfy the rigorous test 

required to grant summary judgment.” (Appt.’s Br. at 2). 

{¶31} Contrary to Koscielak’s argument, the only evidence in the record, 

including Koscielak’s own 2019 deposition, establishes that Koscielak repeatedly 

failed to comply with United’s demands for her to appear for an examination under 

oath and for her to provide documentation regarding the personal property losses. 

Koscielak herself testified that she was aware of United’s earlier requests for the 

examination under oath, and despite the ongoing investigation, Koscielak claimed 

she went to Tennessee with her daughter. Koscielak then claimed that she did not 

have her mail forwarded and that she was thus unaware of communications 

regarding the denial of her claim until months after-the-fact. Even accepting all of 

Koscielak’s statements as true, she still admitted to willfully ignoring United’s 

ongoing investigation despite the numerous and stern letters she received from 

United’s attorneys. It is perfectly reasonable given the statements Jeff made in his 
Case No. 4-19-20 

-12- 

examination under oath that United would want to investigate the matter further, 

and it was also perfectly reasonable that United would want a list of items lost in 

the fire and their relative value before paying for them. 

{¶32} Furthermore, legal authority does support a trial court granting 

summary judgment in favor of an insurer where the insured fails to comply with an 

investigation pursuant to the contract. See Savage v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 10th Dist. 

Franklin No. 08AP-273, 2008-Ohio-4460, ¶¶ 24-25; Joseph v. State Farm Fire and 

Cas. Co., 2013 WL 663623 (S.D. Ohio); Luntz v. Stern, 135 Ohio St. 225, 236-237 

(“Cooperation with the insurer is one of the conditions of the policy and where there 

has been a failure to fulfill a condition upon which the obligation is dependent, the 

obligation ceases.”); Gabor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 66 Ohio App.3d 141 

(8th Dist.1990) (summary judgment granted in favor of insurer affirmed where 

insured did not cooperate with investigation); Doerr v. Allstate Ins. Co., 121 Fed. 

Appx. 638, 641 (6th Cir.2005) (summary judgment granted in favor of insurer 

affirmed where insured did not cooperate with investigation); Johnson v. Allstate 

Ins. Co., 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2001-T-0127, 2002-Ohio-7165 (summary 

judgment granted in favor of insurer affirmed where insured did not cooperate with 

investigation). 

{¶33} Based on the foregoing we find that the trial court correctly determined 

that no genuine issue of material fact existed in this case, that United was entitled 
Case No. 4-19-20 

-13- 

to judgment as a matter of law, and that reasonable minds could reach but one 

conclusion, adverse to Koscielak. Therefore, her assignment of error is overruled. 

Conclusion 

{¶34} For the foregoing reasons Koscielak’s assignment of error is overruled 

and the judgment of the Defiance County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. 

Judgment Affirmed 

PRESTON and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur. 

/jlr