Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Ohio Logistics, Ltd.

2025-Ohio-2830 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2025) · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third Appellate District, Seneca County · August 11, 2025 · No. 13-25-05

Summary

This Ohio Court of Appeals opinion affirms a trial court's dismissal of a declaratory judgment action for lack of personal jurisdiction over two out-of-state defendants. The court determined that the defendants' minimal contacts with an Ohio-based general contractor did not satisfy Ohio's long-arm statute or due process requirements. The cause was remanded to the trial court to proceed against the remaining defendants who did not challenge jurisdiction.

Court
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third Appellate District, Seneca County
Writing for the Court
Juergen A. Waldick; William R. Zimmerman; John R. Willamowski
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
August 11, 2025
Docket number
13-25-05
Procedural posture
Cincinnati Insurance Company appealed the Seneca County Common Pleas Court's dismissal with prejudice of its declaratory-judgment complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants CGreen, LLC and LCP Group, Inc.
Standard of review
Personal jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. Although LCP's motion was styled as a motion for summary judgment, either a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or summary judgment would receive de novo review.
Precedential value
Published opinion; precedential under applicable Ohio appellate rules.
Parties
The Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Ohio Logistics, Ltd., CGreen, LLC, LCP Group, Inc., Horseheads Real Property, LLC, Quantum Impact Steel, LLC, Skylar Butters, Selective Insurance Company
Disposition
affirmed_and_remanded

Topics

personal jurisdictionsubject matter jurisdictionappellate procedurecivil procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Civil procedurePersonal jurisdictionInsurance coverageDeclaratory judgment

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants CGreen, LLC and LCP Group, Inc. under Ohio's long-arm statute and Civil Rule 4.3, consistent with due process.
  2. Whether the trial court erred by dismissing the entire amended complaint when only CGreen and LCP moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
  3. Whether the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Holdings

  1. The trial court properly determined that Ohio lacked personal jurisdiction over CGreen and LCP. Their limited commercial contacts arose from work on a New York project, were directed generally toward New York rather than Ohio, and did not satisfy Ohio's long-arm statute or Civil Rule 4.3; in any event, exercising jurisdiction would violate due process.
  2. The trial court erred to the extent it dismissed the claims against defendants other than CGreen and LCP. The case could proceed against the remaining defendants because they had not moved for dismissal and the trial court conducted no analysis establishing that the action could not proceed without CGreen and LCP.
  3. The assignment of error was overruled because the trial court did not dismiss the action on the basis of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court merely recited a subject-matter-jurisdiction statement from the magistrate's decision and did not rely on it in the law-and-application portion of its judgment.

Key quotations

In order to comport with the due process requirement, a defendant must ‘have certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”’ (¶ 20)
As the trial court conducted no analysis related to the other defendants in its final judgment entry, we presume the trial court only meant to dismiss the complaint against the specific defendants discussed herein. (¶ 33)

Factual background

The underlying dispute arose from the collapse of part of a warehouse under construction in New York, which injured Quantum Impact Steel employee Skylar Butters. The project involved Horseheads Real Property, LLC, Clouse Construction Corp., CGreen, LLC, LCP Group, Inc., and other entities; CGreen and LCP were out-of-state entities performing work on the New York project. Cincinnati Insurance Company, Clouse's insurer, filed an Ohio declaratory-judgment action seeking declarations concerning additional-insured coverage for several defendants. CGreen and LCP had no Ohio offices, licenses, assets, or work, and their relevant project activities and the underlying injury occurred in New York.

Procedural history

Cincinnati Insurance Company filed an amended declaratory-judgment complaint in Ohio against eight defendants concerning insurance coverage arising from a New York construction accident. CGreen moved under Ohio Civil Rule 12(B)(2) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and LCP filed an improperly styled motion for summary judgment raising the same jurisdictional issue. The magistrate granted both motions and dismissed the complaint with prejudice; the trial court overruled Cincinnati Insurance Company's objections and entered judgment. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal as to CGreen and LCP but remanded for clarification and continuation of the case against the remaining defendants.

Remand instructions

Remand to the Seneca County Common Pleas Court to clarify the scope of its dismissal and continue the case against the defendants other than CGreen, LLC and LCP Group, Inc., if the trial court intended to dismiss the entire action.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Court Of Appeals Of Ohio Third Appellate District Seneca County