Court Opinion

ID: 9383650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 21:01:21.382468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:47.169476
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                File Name: 23a0149n.06

                                            No. 21-3371

                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                 FILED
                                FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT                              Mar 30, 2023
                                                                               DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
                                                          )
 THE SCOTT FETZER CO.,
                                                          )
         Plaintiff-Appellant,                             )       ON APPEAL FROM THE
                                                          )       UNITED STATES DISTRICT
 v.                                                       )       COURT     FOR      THE
                                                          )       NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,                       )       OHIO
         Defendant-Appellee.                              )
                                                          )                               OPINION
                                                          )

Before: BATCHELDER, GIBBONS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

       ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Scott Fetzer Company

appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment and attorney’s fees in this

insurance-coverage dispute. Previously, we held that the district court erred when it granted

summary judgment on Scott Fetzer’s breach-of-contract claim. The facts material to this appeal

are thoroughly set out in our prior opinion and in the district court’s opinion; we will not reiterate

them here. After the case returned to district court and the district court entered judgment in Scott

Fetzer’s favor on the breach-of-contract claim, the parties filed cross-motions for summary

judgment on Scott Fetzer’s bad-faith claim. Scott Fetzer argued that there was a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether Zurich conducted a good-faith investigation into its claim. The district

court held that Scott Fetzer failed to show that there was no reasonable justification for how Zurich

handled and denied Scott Fetzer’s claim. The district court also held that Scott Fetzer was not
No. 21-3371, The Scott Fetzer Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

entitled to attorney’s fees because Zurich accepted the defense and coverage with reservation of

rights, and the contract contains no provisions requiring the reimbursement of legal fees.

       After carefully reviewing the law, the parties’ arguments, and the record evidence, we

conclude that the district court correctly assessed the proffered evidence and correctly applied the

law to that evidence. And, as Zurich points out, Scott Fetzer’s argument about the good-faith

investigation involves a legal issue of coverage, not a factual issue. The issuance of a full written

opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for these reasons and the

reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

                                                -2-