{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-25ap-435-2026-07-28","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-25ap-435-2026-07-28)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-17","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e7344b","proof":"sha256:5d84672f32f6766e2abb1d022be9a4787c5f083fb685673b00b68d4e0a74cc7c","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ohioctapp-25ap-435-2026-07-28","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430","para_431"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"[Cite as Thomas v. State Farm Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 2026-Ohio-2896.]","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"Paige V. Thomas, :","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"Plaintiff-Appellant, :","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"No. 25AP-435","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"v. : (C.P.C. No. 22CV-4939)","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"State Farm Mutual Automobile : (REGULAR CALENDAR)","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Insurance Company et al.,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Defendants-Appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"D E C I S I O N","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Rendered on July 28, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"On brief: Scott Elliot Smith, L.P.A., and Scott Elliot Smith;","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Flowers & Grube, and Paul W. Flowers for appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Argued: Scott Elliot Smith.","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"On brief: Gallagher, Gams, Tallan Barnes & Littrell, L.L.P.,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"and James R. Gallagher, for appellee State Farm Mutual","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Automobile Insurance Company. Argued: James R.","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Gallagher.","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"DORRIAN, J.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Paige V. Thomas, appeals the judgment of the Franklin","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"County Court of Common Pleas which denied appellant’s motion to compel and request for","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"extension under Civ.R. 56(F), granted the motion to quash and for protective order filed by","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"defendant-appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm” or","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"“appellee”), and granted summary judgment in favor of appellee on appellant’s bad faith","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"insurance practices claim. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"No. 25AP-435 2","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"I. Facts and Procedural History","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"{¶ 2} This case arises from a vehicle collision that occurred in Franklin County,","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Ohio, on June 5, 2019, between appellant, the driver of her vehicle, and defendant Layla","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Sohaili, who operated another vehicle. Appellant alleged the accident was Sohaili’s fault","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"and that, as a result of the accident, she suffered permanent and disabling physical injuries","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"as well as substantial property damage.","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"{¶ 3} At the time of the accident, appellant was insured through a policy with","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"appellee, State Farm.","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"{¶ 4} On May 10, 2021, appellant filed suit in the Franklin County Court of","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"Common Pleas asserting a negligence claim against Sohaili, a declaratory judgment action","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"against appellee to determine the rights of appellant and appellee under the insurance","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"policy, a breach of contract action against appellee alleging that appellee failed to perform","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"its obligations under the insurance policy, and a bad faith claim against appellee alleging","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"that it failed to act in good faith in the handling and payment of her claims under the","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"insurance policy. Appellant voluntarily dismissed the action on February 2, 2022.","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"{¶ 5} On February 7, 2022, appellant refiled the suit in the Cuyahoga County Court","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"of Common Pleas, asserting the same allegations and claims as asserted in the Franklin","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"County suit except adding appellant’s health insurer, Medical Mutual of Ohio (“Medical","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"Mutual”), as a defendant. On March 23, 2022, Sohaili and State Farm moved to transfer","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"venue back to Franklin County. On April 8, 2022, appellant filed a notice of voluntary","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"dismissal of the claims asserted against Medical Mutual. The Cuyahoga County trial court","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"granted the motion to transfer on May 2, 2022, and the case returned to Franklin County.","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"{¶ 6} On October 24, 2022, appellee moved to bifurcate the bad faith insurance","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"practices claim from the breach of contract claim regarding coverage under the policy and","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"to stay discovery on the bad faith claim. The trial court granted the motion on","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"November 10, 2022.","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"{¶ 7} Ultimately, the claims against Sohaili were dismissed with prejudice","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. In September 2024, the case proceeded","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"to a bench trial on appellant’s breach of contract claim which alleged that State Farm","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"breached the insurance policy when it issued payments under the policy’s medical","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"payments coverage (“MPC”) to The Rawlings Company (“Rawlings”), a third-party entity","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"No. 25AP-435 3","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"that provides services to insurance providers for subrogation of medical payments made by","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"health insurance companies, and that State Farm delayed paying her the remaining","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"$190.07 balance of MPC benefit.","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"{¶ 8} Following the bench trial, the trial court issued a decision finding in favor of","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"appellee. The trial court concluded that State Farm did not commit a breach of contract by","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"directly paying Rawlings, rather than appellant, under the policy’s MPC coverage. The trial","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"court also concluded that State Farm did not breach the insurance policy by issuing the","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"remaining $190.07 balance of the MPC benefit under the policy to appellant when it did in","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"May 2024 and not as soon as appellant produced her medical records during discovery.","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"{¶ 9} Following the trial court’s decision, only appellant’s claim that State Farm","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"acted in bad faith when making payments under the policy remained. The parties disagreed","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"on the scope of discovery to conduct on this claim and each filed motions on their positions.","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"The trial court granted State Farm leave to file a motion for summary judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"{¶ 10} On April 30, 2025, the trial court issued its decision resolving the parties’","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"discovery motions and appellee’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"appellant’s motion to compel and for an extension under Civ.R. 56(F), granted appellee’s","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"motion to quash and for a protective order, and granted appellee’s motion for summary","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"judgment finding in appellee’s favor on appellant’s bad faith claim.","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"II. Assignments of Error","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"{¶ 11} Appellant timely appeals and assigns the following assignments of error for","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"our review:","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"[I.] THE ORIGINAL TRIAL JUDGE ERRED, AND","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"OTHERWISE COMMITTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION,","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"BY ORDERING A TRANSFER OF THIS PROPERLY","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"VENUED ACTION TO FRANKLIN COUNTY AS A RESULT","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE ONLY CUYAHOGA COUNTY","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"DEFENDANT.","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"[II.] AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION WAS COMMITTED, TO","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S CONSIDERABLE DETRIMENT","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE REFUSED TO GRANT A","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"LIMITED PROTECTIVE ORDER OVER CONFIDENTIAL","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"AND PRIVILEGED MEDICAL RECORDS AND","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"INFORMATION.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"No. 25AP-435 4","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"[III.] A FURTHER ABUSE OF DISCRETION WAS","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"COMMITTED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"ALLOW PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT TO CONDUCT","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"NECESSARY AND PROPER DISCOVERY THAT WAS","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"NEEDED TO OPPOSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT.","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"[IV.] THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW,","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"BY GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"DEFENDANT[S]-APPELLEES BASED UPON AN","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"INCOMPLETE EVIDENTIARY RECORD.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"III. Discussion","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"A. First assignment of error","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"{¶ 12} Appellant’s first assignment of error argues that the trial court erred and","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"otherwise abused its discretion by ordering a transfer of venue from Cuyahoga County to","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Franklin County.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"{¶ 13} We review an order granting a motion to transfer venue for abuse of","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"discretion. Speigel v. Ianni, 2023-Ohio-3809, ¶ 39 (1st Dist.) An abuse of discretion","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"implies an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude by the court. State v.","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 (1980).","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"{¶ 14} Civ.R. 3(C) outlines the locations in which an action may be properly venued.","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"Relevant to this appeal, Civ.R. 3(C) provides that proper venue is in any county or counties","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"that meet any of the following criteria:","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"(1) The county in which the defendant resides;","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"(2) The county in which the defendant has his or her principal","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"place of business;","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"(3) A county in which the defendant conducted activity that","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"gave rise to the claims for relief;","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":". . .","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"(6) The county in which all or part of the claim for relief arose;","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":". . .","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"{¶ 15} Here, appellant first filed suit in Franklin County, then voluntarily dismissed","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"that action and filed again in Cuyahoga County. Appellee argues that, in an attempt to","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"create venue in Cuyahoga County, appellant added her health insurer, Medical Mutual, as","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"No. 25AP-435 5","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"an additional defendant. Appellee argues that Medical Mutual, however, was not even a","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"“nominal party” for venue purposes because it had already paid appellant’s medical bills","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"associated with the accident and had already submitted a subrogation claim to State Farm","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"that was paid in full. (Appellee’s Brief at 22.)","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"{¶ 16} Based on this argument, appellee had moved to transfer venue back to","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"Franklin County from Cuyahoga County. Before the Cuyahoga County trial court could","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"decide the transfer request, appellant voluntarily dismissed her claims against Medical","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"Mutual.","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"{¶ 17} In granting the transfer, the Cuyahoga County trial court noted that appellant","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"had voluntarily dismissed the claims against Medical Mutual and that, as a result of that","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"dismissal, venue in Cuyahoga County was not proper. The trial court also found that venue","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"was proper in Franklin County because it was the county in which the activity that gave rise","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"to the claims occurred and where the defendants reside or have their principal place of","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"business. The trial court did not address State Farm’s arguments that Medical Mutual was,","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"at best, a nominal party.1","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"{¶ 18} Appellant contends that the trial court’s reliance on the dismissal of Medical","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"Mutual from the suit to transfer venue was error because Civ.R. 3(F) states, “Neither the","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"dismissal of any claim nor of any party except an indispensable party shall affect the","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"jurisdiction of the court over the remaining parties.” Appellant does not contend that venue","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"in Franklin County is not proper but, rather, that appellant was deprived of the right to","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"select the appropriate venue.","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"{¶ 19} Even if the trial court’s focus on the dismissal of Medical Mutual from the suit","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"was misplaced, we do not find that the transfer of venue was an abuse of discretion.","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"Assuming, for example, that Medical Mutual was more than a nominal party and venue was","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"proper in Cuyahoga County as Medical Mutual’s place of business, there is no question that","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"venue was also proper in Franklin County where appellant filed her original suit. Where","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"venue is proper in more than one county, a plaintiff is able to choose the county in which to","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"bring the action. Speigel, 2023-Ohio-3809, at ¶ 45 (1st Dist). “However, a plaintiff’s ability","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"1 The Civil Rules do not define “nominal party,” but “it may be said that a ‘nominal party’ is one whose presence","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"in the action is either: (1) merely formal; or, (2) unnecessary for a just and proper resolution of the claim(s)","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"presented.” State ex rel. Yeaples v. Gall, 2014-Ohio-4724, ¶ 22, quoting Smith v. Inland Paperboard &","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"Packaging, Inc., 2008-Ohio-6984, ¶ 41 (11th Dist.)","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"No. 25AP-435 6","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"to elect the venue can be restricted where a plaintiff files suit in one jurisdiction, and then","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"dismisses that suit and refiles in a different venue.” Id., citing McGraw v. Convenient Food","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"Mart, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2818, *12 (11th Dist. June 18, 1999). In Speigel, the court","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"relied on McGraw to determine that there was no abuse of discretion for one county court,","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"where venue was “technically proper,” to transfer the case back to the county court where","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"the action was originally filed and where venue was also proper where the plaintiff’s","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"conduct amounted to forum shopping. Speigel at ¶ 47.","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"{¶ 20} Here, appellant chose Franklin County as the original venue for her suit and","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"litigated the case there for almost ten months. The action has significant ties to Franklin","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"County and the only tie to Cuyahoga County is no longer a named party. The action was","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"pending in Cuyahoga County only two months before appellant voluntarily dismissed her","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"claims against Medical Mutual.","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"{¶ 21} Based on the foregoing, we do not find the Cuyahoga County court abused its","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"discretion by transferring the matter back to Franklin County. Accordingly, we overrule","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"appellant’s first assignment of error.2","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"B. Second assignment of error","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"{¶ 22} In the second assignment of error, appellant argues it was an abuse of","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"discretion to deny her motion for a protective order to limit the disclosure of her health","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"information. Appellant sought the protective order in order to prohibit the defendants","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"“from selling, publishing, sharing, or exchanging Plaintiff’s confidential personal health","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"information pursuant to” the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"(“HIPAA”), R.C. 2317.02, and the United States and Ohio constitutions. (Mot. for","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"Protective Order at 15.)","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"2 We note that appellant argues in her brief that the Cuyahoga County trial court “plainly erred” and that this","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"error “plainly and unmistakably prejudiced” appellant. (Appellant’s Brief at 14, 21.) This phrasing suggests a","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"plain error standard of review, but appellant does not develop an argument regarding the application of this","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"standard here. Nonetheless, our conclusion regarding the assignment of error would be the same under a plain","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"error standard because we do not find that appellant suffered any prejudice even if the trial court erred by","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"relying on the dismissal of Medical Mutual to grant the venue transfer. As discussed above, venue is proper in","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"Franklin County and appellant filed her original suit in Franklin County and litigated it there for almost ten","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"months. We are not persuaded by appellant’s suggestion that State ex rel. Smith v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"Common Pleas, 2005-Ohio-4103, instructs us to find prejudice here. In Smith, both the Cuyahoga and Wayne","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"County courts refused to exercise jurisdiction over the case and the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a writ","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"was required so that one of the courts would proceed to judgment. No such circumstances exist here.","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"No. 25AP-435 7","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"{¶ 23} As an initial matter, appellee filed a notice of supplemental authority after","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"oral argument in further support of arguments asserted in its appellate brief. Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"moved to strike the notice, arguing that the notice violated App.R. 21(I) and 16(C).","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"{¶ 24} App.R. 16(C) prohibits the filing of a brief beyond a reply brief without leave","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"of court. App.R. 21(I) provides for citation of additional authorities presented at oral","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"argument but not cited in a party’s brief. Generally, such authorities should be presented","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"to the court and opposing counsel “at least five days prior to oral argument,” but the rule","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"acknowledges there may be “good cause for a later presentment.” The Staff Note to the rule","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"explains that one example of good cause for later presentment would be the unavailability","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"of the authority until after the argument.","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"{¶ 25} Here, appellee’s notice of supplemental authority cites Brown v. State Farm","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6108 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 13, 2025), which was decided","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"almost a year prior to oral argument in this case in February 2026. The decision was not","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"cited in either party’s brief. Appellee does not offer a reason for the late presentment, but","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"offers that the citation is “in support of its assertion that neither HIP[A]A, nor the Illinois","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"decision in [Haage v. Zavala, 183 N.E.3d 830 (Ill. 2021)], operate to restrict the","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"enforcement of the State Farm policy language providing that an insured must produce","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"medical records needed to support their claim without insisting on a protective order.”","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"(Notice of Supplemental Authority at 1.)","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"{¶ 26} We do not find good cause for the late presentment of the supplemental","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"authority here. The additional authority was available prior to the filing of the parties’ briefs","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"and oral argument and appellee offered no explanation for its presentment after argument.","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"Additionally, to the extent the notice could be read as providing argument in support of","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"appellee’s position, we find, in an abundance of caution, that it could be read as an improper","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"brief under App.R. 16(C). For these reasons, we grant appellant’s motion to strike the","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"supplemental authority. We note, however, that the court is capable of conducting its own","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"research, regardless of the submission of supplemental authority. See Reywal Co. Ltd.","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"Partnership v. Dublin, 2010-Ohio-3013, ¶ 68 (10th Dist.); see also U.S. Bank, N.A. v.","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"Smith, 2018-Ohio-3770, ¶ 6 (7th Dist.) (noting that an appellate court conducts its own","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"research and is not limited to consider only those cases cited by the parties in their briefs).","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"No. 25AP-435 8","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"Thus, our resolution of the motion to strike does not, in this circumstance, restrict the court","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"from considering the authority should we find it relevant to do so.","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"{¶ 27} Turning to the merits, we review a trial court’s denial of a protective order for","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"an abuse of discretion. Randall v. Cantwell Mach. Co., 2013-Ohio-2744, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"Appellant argues that we should apply a de novo standard of review because the dispute","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"involves the question of legal privilege afforded to confidential medical information. We","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"are not persuaded that the question in this appeal turns on an issue of law. For example,","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"there is no dispute whether the information appellant sought to protect by the protective","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"order includes medical records. See, e.g., Ward v. Johnson’s Indus. Caterers, Inc., 1998","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"Ohio App. LEXIS 2841, *12 (10th Dist. June 25, 1998) (noting that the case turned on the","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"proper interpretation of terms for medical records as used in R.C. 2317.02(B)(2) and,","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"therefore, the appeal was viewed as a matter involving an issue of law). Additionally,","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"R.C. 2317.02(B)(1)(a)(iii) permits disclosure of confidential medical information when the","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"patient has filed a civil action. At issue here is the warranted scope of disclosure of the","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"medical information to be disclosed in the case. To resolve this issue, we do not need to","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"interpret what is privileged or confidential under R.C. 2317.02(B). See Med. Mut. of Ohio","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"v. Schlotterer, 2009-Ohio-2496, ¶ 13 (noting that discovery orders are generally reviewed","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"under an abuse of discretion standard, but whether the information sought is confidential","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"and privileged is a question of law for de novo review). Therefore, we apply an abuse of","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"discretion standard of review in this case.","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"{¶ 28} Civ.R. 26(C) provides that a protective order may be granted “for good cause","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"shown” and to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"undue burden or expense.” In Hope Academy Broadway Campus v. White Hat Mgt.,","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"L.L.C., 2013-Ohio-911, ¶ 31 (10th Dist.), the Supreme Court of Ohio observed that good","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"cause can be shown “by demonstrating a ‘clearly defined and serious injury’ to the party","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"seeking the protective order.” The party seeking to exclude information has the burden to","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"show that the information to be protected is confidential or privileged, and merely claiming","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"the information is confidential is not sufficient. Eberhard Architects, L.L.C. v.","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn Co., 2013-Ohio-5319, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), citing Covington v. The","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"MetroHealth Sys., 2002-Ohio-6629, ¶ 24 (10th Dist.); Ro-Mai Industries v. Manning","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"Properties, 2010-Ohio-2290, ¶ 28 (11th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"No. 25AP-435 9","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"{¶ 29} Here, appellant sought a protective order to “prohibit the Defendants from","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"selling, publishing, sharing, or exchanging Plaintiffs confidential personal health","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"information” pursuant to federal and state law and the United States and Ohio","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"Constitutions. Appellee objected to the proposed restriction, arguing that appellant had","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"asserted without any support that appellee might sell or publish her health information.","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"Appellee also explained that the insurance policy between the parties included a","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"requirement that an insured individual seeking coverage provide written authorization for","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"State Farm to obtain information like medical records and medical bills and that the","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"authorization could not restrict State Farm from using the information to perform its","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"business functions, fulfilling its data reporting obligations to insurance regulators, or","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"complying with state and federal law.","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"{¶ 30} In denying appellant’s request for a protective order, the trial court held that","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"appellant did not meet her burden of establishing good cause for the protective order. It","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"found that appellant made conclusory allegations about the harm she would experience","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"without the protective order. The trial court also found persuasive Gephart v. FedEx","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"Express, Hancock C.P. No. 2021-CV-69 (Aug. 18, 2021), and concluded that appellant had","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"not shown, with any reasonable degree of certainty, “what embarrassment, annoyance,","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"oppression, undue burden or expense they would be subject to if State Farm was allowed","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"ordinary access to their medical records.” (May 17, 2023 Decision & Entry, at 4-5.)","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"{¶ 31} In Gephart, in arguments mirroring those asserted here, the plaintiffs sought","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"a protective order to protect their healthcare information from further disclosure by State","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"Farm, the defendant insurance company in the case. According to the court, plaintiffs were","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"“fearful their medical records will be entered into the Index Bureau, an indexing service","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"that compiles vast lists of medical records from insurance companies.” Gephart at 3. State","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"Farm objected to the protective order on grounds that it would violate the insurance","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"contract and interfere with its other legal objections, and that other state infrastructure","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"protected plaintiffs’ information. Id. at 4. The trial court agreed with State Farm that the","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"plaintiffs did not meet their burden of establishing good cause for the order. Id. The court","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"found that the plaintiffs’ argument “consists largely of conclusory language which does not","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"sufficiently substantiate their apprehension in allowing State Farm access to their records.”","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"Id. The court also noted, “Plaintiffs have also not shown why this case is different from the","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"No. 25AP-435 10","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"multitude of other cases in which persons are required to allow their insurance companies","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"unfettered access to their records to substantiate their insurance claims.” Id. at 4-5.","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"{¶ 32} Here, although appellant makes a number of legal arguments in support of","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"its position regarding the confidential nature of medical information, appellant does not","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"articulate a specific injury that would occur here absent a protective order. Appellant seems","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"to argue that a protective order is required simply because the material at issue includes","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"confidential medical records. But appellant’s only assertion of a particularized injury is","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"that, without a protective order, State Farm “may sell” her protected health information.","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"(Mot. for Protective Order at 5.)","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"{¶ 33} Appellant also relies on Haage v. Zavala, 183 N.E.3d 830 (Ill. 2021), in which","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"the Illinois Supreme Court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"qualified protective orders pursuant to the HIPAA and its implementing regulations to","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"prohibit the nonlitigation use or disclosure of protected health information and the return","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"or destruction of such records at the end of the litigation. The trial court here did not find","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"Haage persuasive, however, noting that, as an Illinois decision, it was not binding and that","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"it was distinguishable on the facts because it did not involve an interpretation of the parties’","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"obligations under the insurance contract.","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"{¶ 34} The relationship between the parties here is first between insured and insurer","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"because appellant’s claims in this litigation relate to her coverage under the insurance","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"policy. As the trial court noted in its decision denying the request for a protective order,","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"“[t]he policy in this case requires Plaintiff to provide State Farm with written authorization","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"to obtain medical bills, and records that State Farm deems necessary to substantiate","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"Plaintiff’s claims,” and the policy prohibits appellant “from restricting State Farm from","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"retaining and using that information for legitimate lawful business functions.” (May 17,","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"2023 Decision & Entry at 4.) Appellant’s ability to use Civ.R. 26(C) to seek a protective","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"order is something afforded by the litigation process. Appellant has not offered any reason","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"why the information she is seeking to protect in the litigation is different than what might","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"be produced to State Farm in the normal course of insurance claims processing. Nor has","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"appellant offered a reason why producing information in the litigation discovery process","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"requires greater protection than what might be available in the normal course of insurance","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"claim processing under the policy given the state and federal laws and other regulations to","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"No. 25AP-435 11","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"which appellee is subject. To the extent appellant’s argument raises a general policy dispute","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"regarding the ability of insurance companies to access and use an insured’s medical","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"information, that is beyond our purview to determine whether the trial court abused its","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"discretion by denying the protective order.","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"{¶ 35} Although appellant has made general assertions about the confidentiality of","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"her health information, she has not identified anything other than conclusory allegations","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"to support her request. More specifically, under the circumstances of this case, we do not","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"find that appellant’s contention that appellee “may sell” her information rises to the level of","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"a clearly defined and serious injury to establish good cause for a protective order.","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"{¶ 36} Under these circumstances, we do not find that the trial court abused its","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"discretion in denying the protective order. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s second","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"assignment of error.","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"C. Third and fourth assignments of error","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"{¶ 37} In the third assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court abused its","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"discretion by not allowing appellant additional discovery on her bad faith insurance","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"practices claim. In the fourth assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred by","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on the bad faith claim. Appellant alleged","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"that appellee had wrongfully issued the MPC payment to Rawlings for Medical Mutual","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"rather than to appellant. Appellant further alleged that appellee delayed in bad faith in","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"issuing the remaining MPC benefit in the amount of $190.07 to her when it did. Because","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"the third and fourth assignments of error are related, we address them together.","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"{¶ 38} In Ohio, “an insurer has the duty to act in good faith in the handling and","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"payment of the claims of its insured.” Hoskins v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 6 Ohio St.3d. 272, 276","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"(1983); Larrison v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2024-Ohio-4591, ¶ 19 (10th Dist.). An insurer fails","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"to exercise good faith “ ‘where its refusal to pay the claim [of its insured] is not predicated","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"upon circumstances that furnish reasonable justification therefor.’ ” Id., quoting Zoppo v.","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"Homestead Ins. Co., 1994-Ohio-461, paragraph one of the syllabus. Reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"justification is lacking where an insurer refuses to pay a claim for an arbitrary or capricious","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"reason. Jenkins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2013-Ohio-1142, ¶ 41 (10th Dist.);","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"Dorsey v. Campbell Hauling, 2003-Ohio-3341, ¶ 19 (10th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"No. 25AP-435 12","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"{¶ 39} Bad faith claims are not limited to “ ‘scenarios involving an outright denial of","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"payment for a claim.’ ” Toman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2015-Ohio-3351, ¶ 29","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"(8th Dist.), quoting Drouard v. United Servs. Auto. Assn, 2007-Ohio-1049, ¶ 16 (6th","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"Dist.). An insurer’s “foot-dragging” in the handling or evaluation of a claim, even if a claim","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"is ultimately paid, may also give rise to a bad faith claim. Toman at ¶ 29; Mundy v. Roy,","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"2006-Ohio-993, ¶ 21 (2d Dist.). However, “the ‘essential inquiry’ is not whether the","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"insurer’s decision was correct but whether that decision lacked a reasonable justification,","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"i.e., whether it was arbitrary or capricious.” Toman at ¶ 31.","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"{¶ 40} In November 2022, the trial court issued an order bifurcating the breach of","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"contract and bad faith claims and staying discovery on the bad faith claim. The case","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"proceeded to a bench trial on the breach of contract claim after which the trial court","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"concluded that appellee did not violate the insurance policy by making MPC payments","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"directly to Rawlings and that appellee did not breach the policy terms by paying the","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"remainder of the MPC benefits to appellant when it did.","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"{¶ 41} After the trial court’s decision, appellant moved to compel additional","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"discovery on the bad faith claim. In response, appellee moved to quash and for a protective","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"order to restrict additional discovery. Appellee also moved for summary judgment on the","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"bad faith claim. The trial court resolved the discovery motions in the same decision in","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"which it granted summary judgment in appellee’s favor. In doing so, it concluded that the","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"facts on which the bad faith claim was based were addressed in the bench trial on the breach","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"of contract claim.","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"{¶ 42} In her merit brief on appeal, appellant argues that she was not able to “fully","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"substantiate” her bad faith claim without additional discovery. (Appellant’s Brief at 45.)","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"Appellant asserted that appellee’s claim file “may well show, and a deposition may well","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"confirm, that State Farm possessed all the records and information needed to pay the","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"remainder of the MPC benefits years before it finally did so.” (Appellant’s Brief at 55.) In","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"response, appellee argues there was no need for additional discovery because the trial court","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"had already made the relevant factual determinations to resolve the bad faith claim when","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"it issued its decision resolving the breach of contract claims following the bench trial.","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"{¶ 43} In the circumstances of this case, there is substantial overlap between the","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"facts surrounding appellant’s breach of contract claim and the bad faith claim. The parties’","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"No. 25AP-435 13","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"stipulations of fact establish much of the material facts relevant to the bad faith claim.","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"Specifically, the parties stipulated that appellant incurred medical bills due to injuries from","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"the accident in excess of $5,000.00, and that the policy provided $5,000.00 in MPC. The","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"parties also stipulated that appellant’s counsel sent a letter to State Farm on November 25,","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"2019, giving notice of appellant’s claim for MPC benefits under the policy and asserting that","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"State Farm was prohibited from paying any medical providers directly. The parties further","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"stipulated that, on or about October 27, 2020, State Farm issued an MPC payment of","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"$4,809.03 to Rawlings after receiving its claim for subrogation for medical bills Medical","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"Mutual had paid. The parties also stipulated that, after appellant filed suit in May 2021,","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"appellant submitted her medical records and medical bills to appellee’s counsel during","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"discovery. Finally, the parties stipulated that, on May 31, 2024, State Farm issued a check","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"to appellant for $190.07, the remaining balance of the MPC benefit under the policy. In","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"addition to these stipulated facts, the trial court found, in its resolution of the breach of","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"contract claim, that appellee did not breach any duty under the policy by making MPC","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"payments directly to Rawlings or by making the remainder payment to appellee when it","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"did.","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"{¶ 44} Given the foregoing, the remaining question to resolve regarding appellant’s","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"bad faith claim was whether there was a reasonable justification for the way appellee","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"handled the payments. Regarding the timing of the remainder payment, the trial court","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"found in its decision on the breach of contract claim that “[e]ven if the Court were to","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"consider the delay in payment, the Court finds the delay was reasonable under the","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"circumstances,” noting that appellant’s medical records were not submitted to State Farm","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"until after the suit was filed during the discovery process. (Feb. 5, 2025 Decision & Entry","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"at 27.)","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"{¶ 45} Appellant has asserted that appellee’s claim file and a deposition of a State","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"Farm corporate representative “may well show” that State Farm had what it needed to pay","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"the remainder MPC benefit before it did. (Appellant’s Brief at 55.) But this general","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"assertion does not persuade us that the trial court’s discretionary decision to deny the","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"additional requested discovery was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. The trial","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"court had already determined that State Farm’s actions were reasonable under the","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"circumstances, even considering the payment delay.","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"No. 25AP-435 14","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"{¶ 46} Given the stipulated facts and the findings made during the bench trial, we","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"are also not persuaded that there remains a genuine dispute of material fact regarding","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"whether appellee acted in bad faith. On the facts of this case, we find that the trial court","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"could reasonably conclude that appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"appellant’s bad faith claim.","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"{¶ 47} Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s third and fourth assignments of error.","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"IV. Conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"{¶ 48} For the foregoing reasons, we grant appellant’s motion to strike the notice of","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"supplemental authority and overrule appellant’s four assignments of error. Accordingly,","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"Judgment affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"BOGGS, P.J., and MENTEL, J., concur.","paragraph_id":"para_431"}],"word_count":5159,"cites":[],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"6094d49d6f0627fdcf31b786fbfaef8189428c787d0a27ad47b8de73da02fae9","source_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2026/2026-Ohio-2896.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-14T00:57:50.274+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ohioctapp-25ap-435-2026-07-28","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-25ap-435-2026-07-28","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-25ap-435-2026-07-28","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-25ap-435-2026-07-28","verification":{"stored_sha256":"6094d49d6f0627fdcf31b786fbfaef8189428c787d0a27ad47b8de73da02fae9","recomputed_sha256":"6094d49d6f0627fdcf31b786fbfaef8189428c787d0a27ad47b8de73da02fae9","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-18T01:04:13.721Z"}},"hash":"sha256:5d84672f32f6766e2abb1d022be9a4787c5f083fb685673b00b68d4e0a74cc7c","version":"legal-2026-10-17","expires":"2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33","content_hash":"sha256:5d84672f32f6766e2abb1d022be9a4787c5f083fb685673b00b68d4e0a74cc7c","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T02:04:14.303Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-25ap-435-2026-07-28","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-25ap-435-2026-07-28"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-25ap-435-2026-07-28"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-25ap-435-2026-07-28"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ohioctapp-25ap-435-2026-07-28","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-46d1cfe3794e65ad6a65883a4656dca3","response_hash":"sha256:5d84672f32f6766e2abb1d022be9a4787c5f083fb685673b00b68d4e0a74cc7c"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-04T09:47:31.648Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aohioctapp-25ap-435-2026-07-28&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":19448}}