Court Opinion

ID: 9943010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 16:12:14.241251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:50.988549
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Murray v. Auto Owners Ins., 2024-Ohio-656.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                MAHONING COUNTY

                                     TERRANCE MURRAY,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                                       v.

                               AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE,

                                       Defendant-Appellee.

                       OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                        Case No. 23 MA 0048

                                   Civil Appeal from the
                      Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio
                                  Case No. 2022 CV 221

                                           BEFORE:
           William A. Klatt, Retired Judge of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
                                    Sitting by Assignment,
                          Cheryl L. Waite, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.

                                             JUDGMENT:
                                               Affirmed.

 Atty. James S. Gentile, for Plaintiff-Appellant and

 Atty. Kristen E. Campbell, Pelini, Campbell & Ricard LLC, for Defendant-Appellee.

                                     Dated: February 21, 2024
                                                                                                       –2–

 KLATT, J.

        {¶1}    Appellant, Terrance Murray, appeals from the March 14, 2023 judgment of
the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to vacate a summary
judgment order or, in the alternative, for reconsideration. On appeal, Appellant argues
the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate the court’s granting of summary
judgment in favor of Appellee, Auto Owners Insurance, because the court acknowledged
his claim was meritorious and additional discovery evidence created genuine issues of
material fact. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

                             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        {¶2}    On February 11, 2022, Appellant filed a complaint alleging Appellee
breached an insurance contract and acted in bad faith in failing to properly assess a
property damage claim. Specifically, Appellant alleged: he had an insurance policy with
Appellee (Policy No. 52 065513 02, Claim No. 300-0093587-2020) providing home
insurance for rental property located at 8150 Market Street, Youngstown, Mahoning
County, Ohio 44512; the underlying incident occurred on March 28, 2020 when the
property was struck by a severe rain and wind storm; the storm damaged the exterior
(roof) and interior (including personal property); Appellant’s alleged loss was $50,000 to
$60,000; Appellee failed to fairly adjust and pay the claim and sent Appellant a check in
the amount of $6,032.16 which Appellant did not accept; and Appellee then canceled
Appellant’s insurance.1 (2/11/2022 Complaint, p. 1-2).
        {¶3}    On April 5, 2022, Appellee filed an answer and a request for production of
documents. Appellee submitted interrogatories asking for proof to support the claims,
including: identity of experts and reports; any grounds for the bad faith claim; proof of
damages; and photographs of alleged damages. Appellant failed to respond to the
discovery requests.

1 Appellant alleges he paid $2,000 for temporary repairs to the roof and an additional $11,500 to complete

the roof. (8/11/2023 Appellant’s Brief, p. 4). Appellant also indicates at some point thereafter, he suffered
from dementia, was in a nursing facility, and later had a power of attorney. (Id. at p. 2).

Case No. 23 MA 0048
                                                                                        –3–

      {¶4}     On July 21, 2022, Appellee filed a motion to compel discovery responses.
On August 25, 2022, the trial court granted the motion to compel and ordered that
Appellant respond to Appellee’s discovery requests on or before September 26, 2022.
Appellant failed to comply and did not request an extension.
      {¶5}     On November 18, 2022, Appellee filed a motion to dismiss. On November
30, 2022, Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. On December 23, 2022,
Appellant submitted, for the first time, alleged responses to the outstanding discovery
requests. However, the information provided was procedurally and substantively
deficient. On December 29, 2022, Appellant filed a motion in opposition to Appellee’s
motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. Appellee filed a reply in support of
its motion for summary judgment on January 4, 2023.
      {¶6}     On January 26, 2023, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion for summary
judgment, stating:

      While it appears that Plaintiff has established that he has a valid insurance
      claim evidenced by the check tendered by Defendant in April of 2020, he
      has presented no evidence in support of his breach of contract or bad faith
      claims. Specifically, he has presented no evidence to suggest that
      Defendant failed to properly evaluate the claim nor that they did so in bad
      faith.

      After reviewing the Motion and the pleadings in this matter, the Court finds
      that there exist no genuine issues of material fact with respect to all claims,
      and the Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

(1/26/2023 Judgment Entry, p. 2-3).

      {¶7}     Appellant did not appeal the foregoing judgment. Rather, on February 16,
2023, Appellant filed a motion to vacate the summary judgment order or, in the alternative,
for reconsideration. Appellant suggested the judgment entry granting summary judgment
was not a final order. Appellant also argued he was entitled to relief under “Rule 60(B),”
but did not identify how or why such relief was warranted. On February 27, 2023,

Case No. 23 MA 0048
                                                                                                        –4–

Appellee filed a memorandum in opposition. On March 14, 2023, the trial court denied
Appellant’s motions. Specifically, the court stated:

        This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration,
        or in the alternative, Motion to Vacate. For the reasons that follow, the Court
        hereby DENIES the Motion.

        A Motion for Reconsideration is not a permissible avenue to attack a final
        judgment. Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378, 380, 423
        N.E.2d 1105, 1007 (1981). “(M)otions for reconsideration of a final judgment
        in the trial court are a nullity.” Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for
        Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

        The Plaintiff moves the Court, in the alternative, to vacate the judgment.
        The Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has a meritorious claim, nor has
        he met one of the provisions under Civ.R. 60(B). Accordingly, this Motion is
        also DENIED.

(3/14/2023 Judgment Entry).

        {¶8}    Appellant timely appealed the March 14, 2023 judgment and raises one
assignment of error.2

                                     ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

        THE COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO
        VACATE THE COURT’S GRANTING OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR
        DEFENDANT            WHEN         THE      COURT         ACKNOWLEDGED                 THAT
        PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM WAS MERITORIOUS AND WHEN ADDITIONAL

2 Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final appealable order.   Appellee claimed “the
‘appeal’ of the motion for reconsideration/motion to vacate is simply an attempt to get around the Appellant’s
own decision to forego an appeal of the January 2[6], 2023 entry in the first place.” (5/3/2023 Motion to
Dismiss Appeal, p. 3-4). This court denied Appellee’s motion to dismiss. This court stated: “Appellee’s
motion to dismiss presupposes the arguments to be raised by Appellant on appeal. While it is true that
Appellant did not appeal the underlying trial court summary judgment entry, the judgment entry denying the
motion to vacate was itself a final appealable order.” (8/1/2023 Judgment Entry, p. 2).

Case No. 23 MA 0048
                                                                                          –5–

      SUBSTANTIAL DISCOVERY EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED CREATING
      GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACTS.

      {¶9}   In his sole assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
denying his motion to vacate the court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of
Appellee because the court acknowledged his claim was meritorious and additional
discovery evidence created genuine issues of material fact.
      {¶10} As stated, on November 30, 2022, Appellee filed a motion for summary
judgment which was granted by the trial court on January 26, 2023.

      An appellate court conducts a de novo review of a trial court’s decision to
      grant summary judgment, using the same standards as the trial court set
      forth in Civ.R. 56(C). Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105,
      671 N.E.2d 241 (1996). Before summary judgment can be granted, the trial
      court must determine that: (1) no genuine issue as to any material fact
      remains to be litigated, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
      matter of law, (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can
      come to but one conclusion, and viewing the evidence most favorably in
      favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made,
      the conclusion is adverse to that party. Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50
      Ohio St.2d 317, 327, 364 N.E.2d 267 (1977). Whether a fact is “material”
      depends on the substantive law of the claim being litigated. Hoyt, Inc. v.
      Gordon & Assoc., Inc., 104 Ohio App.3d 598, 603, 662 N.E.2d 1088 (8th
      Dist.1995).

      “(T)he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court
      of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record which
      demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element
      of the nonmoving party’s claim.” (Emphasis deleted.) Dresher v. Burt, 75
      Ohio St.3d 280, 296, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). If the moving party carries its
      burden, the nonmoving party has a reciprocal burden of setting forth specific
      facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 293, 662 N.E.2d

Case No. 23 MA 0048
                                                                                        –6–

      264. In other words, when presented with a properly supported motion for
      summary judgment, the nonmoving party must produce some evidence to
      suggest that a reasonable factfinder could rule in that party’s favor. Brewer
      v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio App.3d 378, 386, 701 N.E.2d 1023 (8th
      Dist.1997).

      The evidentiary materials to support a motion for summary judgment are
      listed in Civ.R. 56(C) and include the pleadings, depositions, answers to
      interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and
      written stipulations of fact that have been filed in the case. In resolving the
      motion, the court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the
      nonmoving party. Temple, 50 Ohio St.2d at 327, 364 N.E.2d 267.

Doe v. Skaggs, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 18 BE 0005, 2018-Ohio-5402, ¶ 10-12.

      {¶11} However, Appellant did not appeal the trial court’s January 26, 2023
judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee. Instead, on February 16,
2023, Appellant filed a motion to vacate the summary judgment order under Civ.R. 60(B)
or, in the alternative, for reconsideration. On March 14, 2023, the trial court denied
Appellant’s motions. Appellant now appeals from that judgment denying the motion for
reconsideration or motion to vacate under Civ.R. 60(B).

      The standard of review used to evaluate the trial court’s decision to grant or
      deny a Civ.R. 60(B) motion is abuse of discretion. Ohio Dept. of Job &
      Family Servs. v. State Line Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 7th Dist. Mahoning
      No. 15 MA 0067, 2016-Ohio-3421, ¶ 12. An abuse of discretion connotes
      conduct which is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State ex rel.
      Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 107,
      647 N.E.2d 799 (1995).

Paczewski v. Antero Res. Corp., 7th Dist. Monroe No. 18 MO 0016, 2019-Ohio-2641, ¶
27.

      {¶12} While grouped as an appeal from the denial of his request to vacate a prior
judgment, Appellant is substantively challenging the ruling which granted summary

Case No. 23 MA 0048
                                                                                         –7–

judgment to Appellee. However, Ohio courts, including this District, have repeatedly
recognized the following:

       * * * Civ.R. 60(B) shall not be used as a substitute for appeal. See, e.g., Key
       v. Mitchell (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 89, 90-91, 689 N.E.2d 548 (1998) (“A
       Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment cannot be used as a substitute
       for a timely appeal or as a means to extend the time for perfecting an appeal
       from the original judgment.”). “It is a fundamental principle of both civil and
       criminal procedure that a Civ.R. 60(B) motion is not a substitute for a direct
       appeal.” State v. Rucci, 7th Dist. Nos. 13MA65, et al., 2014-Ohio-1396, ¶
       12.

       As Civ.R. 60(B) is not a substitute for an appeal, it cannot be utilized merely
       to raise mistakes allegedly committed by the trial court. Id. In other words,
       to raise mistakes allegedly committed by the trial court, one must appeal
       rather than attempt to use a Civ.R. 60(B) motion (which would actually just
       be an attempt at reconsideration with a 60(B) label).

State v. Brown, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 13 MA 172, 2014-Ohio-5824, ¶ 49-50.

       {¶13} Ohio courts have also long recognized there is no provision in the Civil
Rules for a motion for reconsideration of a final entry. “Without a specific prescription in
the Civil Rules for a motion for reconsideration, it must be considered a nullity.” Pitts,
supra, at 380.
       {¶14} Appellant claims the January 26, 2023 judgment entry granting summary
judgment in favor of Appellee was not a final order because the issue of damages was
not resolved. However, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, that judgment actually granted
judgment as a matter of law to Appellee, therefore, there was no pending issue of
damages. There is nothing substantively different between Appellant’s memorandum
opposing summary judgment and his motion to vacate. Appellant did not provide any
new evidence or raise any argument that the trial court failed to consider. Rather,
Appellant seeks a different ruling based on the same record that was before the trial court
in the summary judgment proceedings. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in

Case No. 23 MA 0048
                                                                                        –8–

determining the January 26, 2023 judgment entry granting summary judgment in favor of
Appellee was a final order that required Appellant to file an appeal rather than a motion
to reconsider or vacate.
      {¶15} In addition, the trial court did not err in determining Appellant failed to
present evidence of a meritorious defense required for a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate.

      In order to prevail on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion, “the movant must demonstrate
      that: (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is
      granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in
      Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable
      time, and, where the grounds of relief are Civ.R. 60(B)(1), (2) or (3), not
      more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or
      taken.” Ohio Receivables, LLC v. Millikin, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 17 CO
      0038, 2018-Ohio-3734, ¶ 19, quoting GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC
      Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976), paragraph two
      of the syllabus.

Paczewski, supra, at ¶ 26.

      {¶16} If any of the foregoing three requirements is not met, the motion should be
denied. Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1988).
      {¶17} Appellant contends he has a meritorious defense because the trial court
found he had a valid insurance claim. The record reveals, however, the court simply
recognized that Appellant submitted a claim to Appellee and Appellee issued a check for
damages, thereby showing a valid claim for benefits under the policy. And, in fact, the
court expressly ruled Appellant failed to present any evidence to support either breach of
contract or bad faith claims. See Adams, supra, at 21 (“Relief from a final judgment
should not be granted unless the party seeking such relief makes at least a prima facie
showing that the ends of justice will be better served by setting the judgment aside.”)
Here, Appellant has failed to present any prima facie evidence to support his claims.
Appellee aptly summarizes:

Case No. 23 MA 0048
                                                                                        –9–

       To this day, Appellant has done nothing more than restate the allegations
       in the complaint. He has not cited to any specific provision in the policy
       which was allegedly violated. He has not produced photos of any damages
       which were not paid for by the company. He has not submitted any
       correspondence between the property owner and the adjuster discussing
       the alleged damages, the value of the claim, the check issued by the
       insurance company, or why the check was not cashed. He has not provided
       an affidavit from the individual allegedly holding a power of attorney for the
       property owner which discusses the details of the transaction with the
       insurance company. He has not presented any expert witness testimony or
       opinions regarding the alleged damages, the value of the claim, or the
       claims-handling process. He did not even present any proof that the
       property damage check issued by the insurance company was rejected. In
       short, there is absolutely nothing on the record to support a claim for breach
       of contract or bad faith.

(8/28/2023 Appellee’s Brief, p. 7).

       {¶18} Appellant fails to provide any evidence that he has a meritorious defense
against the judgment entry granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee.
       {¶19} Additionally, “[a] movant must demonstrate he ‘is entitled to relief under one
of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5).’ GTE Automatic Elec., 47 Ohio St.2d
at 151.” Davis v. Barton, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 20 MA 0064, 2021-Ohio-2359, ¶ 49.
Here, Appellant did not list or provide support for any of the Civ.R. 60(B)(1)-(5) factors.
Appellant did not submit any argument or evidence in support of which provision under
Civ.R. 60(B) he was using to support his motion. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying
Appellant’s motion to vacate as he failed to establish the grounds upon which the motion
was founded.
       {¶20} Lastly, Appellant asserts he has supported his allegations with additional
discovery evidence attached to his motion to vacate. The record reveals the trial court
ordered Appellant to produce discovery responses no later than September 26, 2022.
Appellant failed to comply with the trial court’s order and did not request an extension.

Case No. 23 MA 0048
                                                                                       – 10 –

Appellant did not provide any evidence until December 23, 2022, after Appellee filed its
motion for summary judgment, which the court was not required to consider.
       {¶21} Appellant’s untimely discovery responses were from a “power of attorney”
but without the required signature of the principal or principal’s representative. Thus, they
were not properly verified. See R.C. 1337.25 (a power of attorney must be signed by the
principal (or, in the principal’s conscious presence by another individual directed by the
principal to sign the principal’s name on the power of attorney)); Scott v. Kindred
Transitional Care & Rehab., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103256, 2016-Ohio-495, ¶ 8 (A
party’s signature and notation of “P.O.A.” has no legal effect in the absence of a statutorily
valid power of attorney signed by the principal).
       {¶22} Furthermore, the untimely discovery responses include a repair estimate
and receipt payment. However, they are not properly authenticated as required by Civ.R.
56 because they are not dated and/or signed. See Bank of America v. Bobovyik, 7th Dist.
Columbiana No. 13 CO 54, 2014-Ohio-5499, ¶ 57 (A court need not consider hearsay in
resolving motions for summary judgment).
       {¶23} There is nothing in the untimely discovery responses to support claims for
breach of contract or bad faith. Even assuming arguendo that Appellant’s discovery
evidence had been timely provided, the trial court could not have considered it when ruling
on the motion for summary judgment and it did not support a meritorious claim under
Civ.R. 60(B).    Thus, the court did not err in disregarding Appellant’s unverified,
unsupported, and unauthenticated untimely discovery responses which did not establish
a meritorious defense or grounds for relief from judgment.
       {¶24} Upon consideration, the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion
to vacate since the motion was an improper substitute for an appeal of a final order. The
court further did not err in denying the motion to vacate since Appellant failed to show he
had a meritorious defense and did not set forth which Civ.R. 60(B) ground for relief he
was claiming to be entitled.

                                      CONCLUSION

       {¶25} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s sole assignment of error is not well-
taken. The March 14, 2023 judgment of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. 23 MA 0048
                                                                                   – 11 –

denying Appellant’s motion to vacate a summary judgment order or, in the alternative, for
reconsideration is affirmed.

Waite, J., concurs.

Hanni, J., concurs.

Case No. 23 MA 0048
[Cite as Murray v. Auto Owners Ins., 2024-Ohio-656.]

         For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignment of error
 is overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the
 Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed
 against the Appellant.
         A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
 in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that
 a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into
 execution.

                                       NOTICE TO COUNSEL

         This document constitutes a final judgment entry.