Opinion ID: 2971672
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: bad faith appeal

Text: -8- No. 03-3824/3825 B-T Dissolution, Inc. v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. B-T argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Provident on B-T’s claim for bad-faith denial of benefits. The district court found that Matthews was totally disabled by reason of an unusual psychological malady that is not part of the standard maladies identified by the medical community (and which Provident characterizes as an “addiction to work”). Under Zoppo v. Homestead Ins. Co., 644 N.E.2d 397 (Ohio 1994), to prevail on a bad faith claim, an insured must show that there was no reasonable justification for the manner of handling or for the denying of the insured’s claim. Summary judgment in favor of the insurer is appropriate where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the insured, the claim was fairly debatable and the refusal was premised on the status of the law at the time or the facts that gave rise to the claim. Tokles & Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemnity Co., 605 N.E.2d 936, 943 (Ohio 1992). On our review of the record, we agree with the district court that a jury could not reasonably conclude from the evidence in this case that Provident lacked a reasonable, if incorrect, basis for denying B-T’s claim.