BBI Logistics, L.L.C. v. GRS Transport, Inc.

Summary

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Travelers Property Casualty Company of America in BBI Logistics’ action arising from the rejection and loss of a shipment of frozen chicken. The court held that BBI’s untimely responses to requests for admission were properly deemed admitted, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance, and that the cargo theft exclusion negated coverage under the insurance policy. The court also concluded that BBI’s bad-faith claim failed because there was no coverage.

Holdings

1. A party's failure to timely respond to requests for admission causes the matters requested to become admissions automatically under Civ.R. 36(A)(1). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow BBI to withdraw or amend its default admissions because BBI failed to show that withdrawal would promote presentation of the merits.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying BBI's request for a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance.
3. When a trial court grants summary judgment without expressly ruling on a pending motion to strike or Civ.R. 56(F) motion, the motion is ordinarily presumed to have been denied. The trial court did not err in considering the challenged affidavits and documents.
4. The cargo-theft exclusion applied because the frozen chicken remained in a trailer at a nonterminal, nonfacility location for more than 24 hours and the time of loss could not be determined. The chicken therefore was not covered property under the policy.
5. Travelers was entitled to summary judgment on BBI's breach-of-contract claim because the loss involved property excluded from coverage. BBI's bad-faith claim also failed because an insurer that does not breach the policy when denying coverage cannot be liable for bad faith on that denial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly deemed Travelers' requests for admission admitted after BBI failed to respond by the agreed deadline and properly denied BBI leave to withdraw or amend the admissions.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying BBI a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance to conduct additional depositions.
3. Whether the trial court properly treated BBI's unresolved motion to strike as implicitly denied and properly considered the evidence supporting Travelers' summary-judgment motion.
4. Whether the cargo-theft exclusion excluded the frozen chicken from covered property under the insurance policy.
5. Whether Travelers was entitled to summary judgment on BBI's bad-faith claim because there was no breach of the insurance policy.

Disposition

affirmed