[Cite as Allen v. Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 2011-Ohio-3855.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

DAWANNA M. ALLEN 

 Plaintiff 

 V. 

BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-10793-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} On September 10, 2010, plaintiff, DaWanna M. Allen, was stopped and 

detained by a Columbus, Ohio police officer. The officer listed the reason for stopping 

plaintiff and her vehicle as “random noncompliance” pursuant to section 2141.11(A) of 

the Columbus City Traffic Code (copy of citation submitted). The officer apparently 

checked plaintiff’s driver’s license status and communicated to her that it was listed by 

defendant, Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), as suspended due to failure to prove 

financial responsibility (automobile insurance coverage). Evidently, BMV had 

suspended plaintiff’s license for plaintiff’s alleged failure to provide proof of automobile 

insurance on or before August 31, 2010. Incident to the traffic stop, plaintiff’s driver’s 

license was seized and plaintiff was directed to appear at Franklin County Municipal 

Court on September 20, 2010. Plaintiff asserted the suspension was in error, her court 
case was dismissed, and that although she was not charged a reinstatement fee, she 

did incur work loss, court costs, travel expenses, and inconvenience. In addition, 

plaintiff contended her driver’s license had not yet been returned to her. 

{¶ 2} Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $295.08, for work loss and 

court costs. Plaintiff also seeks recovery of the $25.00 filing fee which was paid when 

the complaint was filed. In addition, plaintiff requests an unspecified amount of damages 

for travel, gas, and inconvenience. 

{¶ 3} Defendant filed an investigation report stating, on June 4, 2010, a letter 

was mailed by its agent to plaintiff requiring her to show proof of financial responsibility 

for an automobile owned by and registered to her.1

 Defendant randomly selected 

plaintiff to receive the insurance coverage verification correspondence. Defendant's 

mailing was done pursuant to statutory and administrative regulation authority.2

 Ohio 

 1

 Defendant did not submit a copy of the letter with the investigation report. 

2

 R.C. 4509.101which prohibits operation of a motor vehicle without proof of financial 

responsibility states in relevant part: 

 “(A) (1) No person shall operate, or permit the operation of, a motor vehicle in this state, unless 

proof of financial responsibility is maintained continuously throughout the registration period with respect 

to that vehicle, or, in the case of a driver who is not the owner, with respect to that driver's operation of 

that vehicle. 

 “* * *. 

 “(3) A person to whom this state has issued a certificate of registration for a motor vehicle or a 

license to operate a motor vehicle or who is determined to have operated any motor vehicle or permitted 

the operation in this state of a motor vehicle owned by the person shall be required to verify the existence 

of proof of financial responsibility covering the operation of the motor vehicle or the person's operation of 

the motor vehicle under any of the following circumstances: 

 “* * *. 

 “(C) Whenever, in accordance with rules adopted by the registrar, the person is randomly 

selected by the registrar and requested to provide such verification.” 

 Ohio Adm. Code 4501:1-2-07. Requiring proof of financial responsibility by random selection 

states, in part: 

 “(A) This rule governs procedures adopted by the registrar of motor vehicles requiring proof of 

financial responsibility by random selection. 

 “(B) The bureau of motor vehicles (BMV) vehicle registration data file shall be the original source 

from which random selections shall be made. 

 “(C) The registrar shall designate the types and classes of vehicles which shall be included in the 

random selection. Initially, the registrar shall limit selection to passenger cars and noncommercial 

vehicles, except farm trucks. One year after the random selection begins, and annually thereafter, the 

registrar may determine whether any types or classes of vehicles shall be added to or deleted from the 

selection process. 

 “(D) The registrar shall prescribe the number of vehicles to be selected on a random basis. The 

number may be a stated number or a stated percentage of the vehicles registered in the vehicle types 

and classes designated by the registrar. Initially, five percent of the designated types and classes of 

vehicles shall be selected. One year after the random selection begins, and periodically thereafter, the 

registrar may increase or decrease the number of vehicles selected. 

 “(E) The registrar shall prescribe the method to be used to assure random selection. The method 
Adm. Code 4501:1-2-08 governs the random selection suspension procedure, and 

states, in relevant part: 

{¶ 4} “(A) The registrar of motor vehicles shall send a written notice by regular 

mail to the owner of each vehicle randomly selected in accordance with rule 4501:1-2-

07 of the Administrative Code. The notice shall identify the vehicle selected and shall 

inform the owner that the owner is required to submit proof showing financial 

responsibility coverage was in effect with respect to the selected vehicle on the date 

specified by the registrar. The notice shall inform the owner of the methods and 

procedures for submitting proof of financial responsibility coverage and shall specify that 

the proof of financial responsibility shall be submitted within twenty-one days of the 

mailing of the notice. The notice may also contain such other information as the 

registrar may prescribe. 

{¶ 5} “* * * 

{¶ 6} “(C) If the owner of a vehicle randomly selected pursuant to rule 4501:1-2-

07 of the Administrative Code, within twenty-one days of the mailing of the notice, fails 

to respond to the notice, fails to give acceptable evidence that the vehicle is exempt, or 

fails to give acceptable proof of financial responsibility, the registrar shall order the 

suspension of the license of the person required under division (A)(2)(a) of section 

4509.101 of the Revised Code and the impoundment of the person's certificate of 

registration and license plates required under division (A)(2)(b) of section 4509.101 of 

the Revised Code, effective no less than fifty-six days after the date of the mailing of 

notice of suspension. The notice of suspension also shall notify the person that the 

person must present the registrar with proof of financial responsibility, submit evidence 

acceptable to the registrar showing that the vehicle is exempt, or surrender to the 

registrar the person's certificate of registration, license plates, and license. The notice of 

suspension shall be in writing and shall be sent to the person at the person's last known 

address as shown on the records of the bureau of motor vehicles. The person, within 

twenty-one days after the date of the mailing of the notice of suspension, shall present 

 

may employ the use of a computer program or any other reasonable method the registrar determines will 

assure a fair and representative random selection. 

 “(F) The registrar may determine that certain vehicles shall be exempt from the random selection 

process. Vehicles which may be exempted may include, but are not limited to: * * *.” 
proof of financial responsibility, or submit evidence showing that the vehicle is exempt, 

together with any other information the person considers appropriate. 

{¶ 7} “(D) If the registrar does not receive proof, or the person does not give 

acceptable evidence that the vehicle is exempt in accordance with this rule, within 

twenty-one days, the registrar shall send a second notice of suspension to the person 

by certified mail return receipt requested. If the first notice of suspension is returned as 

not deliverable, the registrar shall make reasonable efforts to determine if the owner's 

address has changed before sending the second notice of suspension. The second 

notice of suspension shall contain the most recent address for the person as 

determined by the registrar, the same or similar information, and the same suspension 

date as the original notice of suspension unless the registrar determines that a different 

suspension date is necessary to give the person adequate notice. The second notice of 

suspension shall give the person an additional period of no less than fourteen days in 

which to present the registrar with proof of financial responsibility, or submit evidence 

acceptable to the registrar showing that the vehicle is exempt, together with any other 

information the person considers appropriate. 

{¶ 8} “(E) If the registrar does not receive acceptable proof and the person does 

not give acceptable evidence that the vehicle is exempt in accordance with this rule, the 

person shall surrender the certificate of registration, license plates, and license to the 

registrar no later than the date of suspension and the registrar shall permit the order of 

the suspension of the license of the person and the impoundment of the person's 

certificate of registration and license plates to take effect. 

{¶ 9} “(F) In the case of a person who presents, within the periods specified in 

this rule, documents to show proof of financial responsibility, the registrar shall 

terminate the order of suspension and the impoundment of the registration and license 

plates required under division (A)(2)(b) of section 4509.101 of the Revised Code and 

shall send written notification to the person, at the person's last known address as 

shown on the records of the bureau.” 

{¶ 10} According to defendant, plaintiff did not respond to the first notice. 

Defendant stated its agent mailed plaintiff a second notice on July 7, 2010, (copy 

submitted) notifying plaintiff her driving and vehicle registration privileges would be 
suspended beginning on August 31, 2010. Plaintiff was afforded a twenty-one day 

period to submit proof of financial responsibility. Defendant related plaintiff again failed 

to respond. Thus, on August 6, 2010, BMV, through its agent, sent plaintiff a second 

notice of suspension (copy submitted) notifying plaintiff her driving and registration 

privileges “will be suspended” starting August 31, 2010. This notice was sent by 

certified mail, return receipt requested, and plaintiff signed the certified mail receipt 

(copy submitted) on August 7, 2010. The notice also granted plaintiff a final twenty-one 

day period to provide proof of financial responsibility and directed plaintiff to mail such 

proof to BMV at a post office box address in Columbus Ohio. 

{¶ 11} Defendant acknowledged plaintiff mailed her insurance information (copy 

of envelope postmarked August 26, 2010 submitted) to an agent of BMV at a post office 

address in Richfield, Ohio. Defendant asserted the mailing apparently was then 

forwarded to the Columbus location. Defendant acknowledged the following: “BMV did 

not receive and process this mailing until September 21, 2010.” According to 

defendant, “the address Plaintiff used was the mailing address for [defendant’s] 

processing agent, RMS, a private contractor providing mailing services for BMV 

pursuant to O.A.C. 4501:1-2-08(K).”3

 Defendant explained that normally, “RMS would 

have electronically entered Plaintiff’s insurance in Defendant BMV’s records on the next 

business day after it was received by RMS. However, at the time in question, BMV was 

transitioning from RMS as its processing agent, to a new processing agent, PASCO, of 

Hudson, Ohio. At that time, RMS was forwarding mail received by it at the Richfield 

address to BMV at its Columbus address. Defendant BMV admits that this temporary 

mail forwarding process may have delayed BMV’s processing of Plaintiff’s August 26, 

2010, proof of insurance mailing. Nevertheless, Defendant BMV asserts that Plaintiff’s 

own negligence was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s claimed damages.” 

{¶ 12} Plaintiff did not file a response. 

{¶ 13} Defendant apparently suspended plaintiff's driver's license for failure to 

prove financial responsibility and that suspension was in effect on September 10, 2010, 

 3

 (K) In carrying out his duties under this rule, the registrar may contract with outside sources to 

process any information, send and receive any notices, and take any actions on behalf of the registrar as 

the registrar may prescribe. 
when plaintiff received a citation from a police officer. Defendant admitted it removed 

the suspension on September 12, 2010, after plaintiff personally appeared at a BMV 

location in Columbus, Ohio and provided proof of financial responsibility. 

{¶ 14} After reviewing all the information contained in defendant's investigation 

report, the court finds defendant's assertions are not particularly persuasive. The court 

finds that in all likelihood, the address for RMS which was used by plaintiff was listed on 

the original notice mailed to plaintiff on June 4, 2010. In addition, the court finds that 

defendant has failed to prove it did not receive plaintiff’s submission verifying financial 

responsibility within the requisite time period. "’Notice to an agent of [a corporation] 

entrusted with the management of its business is notice to the corporation in 

transactions conducted by such agent acting for the corporation, in the scope of his 

authority, whether the knowledge of the agent was acquired in the course of the 

particular dealing or on some prior occasion." First Nat'l Bank v. Burns (1913), 88 Ohio 

St. 434, 444, 103 N.E. 93, quoting Craige et al. v. Hadley (1885), 99 N. Y. 131, 1 N.E. 

537. Likewise, the court finds that notice to BMV’s agent constitutes notice to BMV. 

See Garcia v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles (2001), 2001-01515-AD. Defendant has failed 

to prove plaintiff did not submit proof of financial responsibility within the required time 

set forth in the final notice received by plaintiff on August 7, 2010. Accordingly, the 

court finds defendant's action in suspending plaintiff's driver's license was misguided, 

erroneous, and unfounded. 

{¶ 15} Plaintiff has indicated she had no knowledge her license had been 

suspended until September 10, 2010, when she was stopped and issued a citation. 

Plaintiff professed the erroneous suspension notice caused her suffering and 

inconvenience with her employer, and that without her license she has difficulty making 

purchases which require proof of age or other forms of identification. Additionally, 

plaintiff offered substantial proof of her damages claimed with the exception of her travel 

expenses. Specifically, plaintiff provided documentation of her hourly wage, hours 

missed to attend court, and the amount paid for court costs. Since plaintiff's license 

was suspended and she was issued a citation, she obviously was forced to lose a day's 

wages in order to clear her license suspension. Finally, plaintiff has presented a 

situation where it is readily discernible that she suffered mental anxiety and humiliation 
from the events of September 10, 2010, and its aftermath. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 16} Resulting damages may be recovered when a plaintiff proves, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, her driver's license was erroneously listed as 

suspended by defendant. Ankney v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles (1998), 97-11045-AD; 

Serbanescu v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles (1994), 93-15038-AD; Black v. Bureau of 

Motor Vehicles (1996), 95-01441-AD. These damages must directly flow from 

defendant's failure to convey accurate information. Henighan v. Ohio Dept. of Public 

Safety (1997), 97-01619-AD; Jordan v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles (1998), 97-10341-AD. 

{¶ 17} Plaintiff has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her driver's 

license was improperly listed as suspended by defendant. McGee v. Ohio Bureau of 

Motor Vehicles (1997), 97-03999-AD. Defendant is liable to plaintiff for damages plaintiff 

can prove resulted from defendant's failure to provide correct information. Partlow v. 

Bureau of Motor Vehicles (1997), 97-07820-AD. In the instant claim, plaintiff has proven 

her work loss resulted from negligence attributable to defendant. 

{¶ 18} Emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation are recognized 

elements of damages and, thus, compensable by this court. Ankney. The assessment 

of damages is a matter within the province of the trier of fact. Litchfield v. Morris (1985), 

25 Ohio App. 3d 42, 25 OBR 115, 495 N.E.2d 462. Where the existence of damage is 

established, the evidence need only tend to show the basis for the computation of 

damages to a fair degree of probability. Brewer v. Brothers (1992), 82 Ohio App. 3d 

148, 611 N.E.2d 492. Only reasonable certainty as to the amount of damages is 

required, which is that degree of certainty of which the nature of the case admits. 

Bemmes v. Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys. Of Ohio (1995), 102 Ohio App. 3d 782, 658 

N.E.2d 31. Defendant is liable to plaintiff for her work loss, court costs, and emotional 

distress, which the trier of fact has calculated at $360.00. Defendant is also liable to 

plaintiff for the $25.00 filing fee, pursuant to the holding in Bailey v. Ohio Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction (1990), 62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19, 587 N.E.2d 990. Bumpus v. 

Bur. of Motor Vehicles, Ct. of Cl. No. 2004-01117-AD, 2004-Ohio-4589. 
Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

DAWANNA M. ALLEN 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-10793-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE

DETERMINATION

 Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth 

in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor 

of plaintiff in the amount of $385.00, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are 

assessed against defendant. 

 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Dawanna M. Allen John R. Guldin 

2120 Pepper Street Department of Public Safety 

Columbus, Ohio 43219 Legal Services 

 1970 West Broad Street 
 P.O. Box 182081 

 Columbus, Ohio 43218-2081 

SJM/laa 

3/30 

Filed 4/21/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 8/5/11