FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Wednesday, March 26, 2025
CAPTION: HARMON V. WALTERS
APPEAL NO.: C-240321
TRIAL NO.: A-2202354
KEY WORDS: MOTION TO WITHDRAW — INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff’s counsels’ motion to withdraw where the record reflects that plaintiff’s first attorney withdrew while plaintiff was still represented by two other attorneys from the same law firm, and where the record reflects that plaintiff attended a hearing on a motion to withdraw filed by the two remaining attorneys, who alleged that plaintiff had terminated their relationship, and plaintiff did not object to their withdrawal, and therefore, plaintiff waived any issue with regard to the withdrawal of his second and third attorneys.
The trial court erred in sua sponte dismissing plaintiff’s case under Civ.R. 41(B)(1) for plaintiff’s failure to comply with a pretrial filing deadline where the trial court did not give plaintiff an opportunity to explain noncompliance with the pretrial filing deadline before dismissing plaintiff’s case.
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; ZAYAS and BOCK, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: RICK AND CHARLES INVESTMENTS, LLC V. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC.
APPEAL NO.: C-240456
TRIAL NO.: A-2303640
KEY WORDS: INSURANCE — VACANCY — CUSTOMARY OPERATIONS — BAD FAITH — SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: Where the customary operations of the insured property were those of a church or synagogue, and where the property was not being used for those purposes, but rather was used as a warehouse, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the insurer on a claim for breach of contract because the insurer properly denied coverage under a vacancy provision in the policy that required at least 31 percent of the property be used to conduct customary operations.
Where the insurer had a reasonable justification to deny coverage, the insurer did not act in bad faith and the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the insurer on the insured’s claim for bad-faith denial of coverage.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, P.J.; BOCK and NESTOR, JJ., CONCUR.