The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ELEGANT EGLO, LLC, Case No. 1:19-CV-02671
Plaintiff,
-vs-
JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER
ONYX INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
ET AL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
Defendants. O RDER
Currently pending is Defendant American Specialty Insurance Group, Inc.’s (“American
Specialty”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Request for Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions
(“American Specialty’s Motion”). (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff Elegant Eglo, LLC filed a Brief in
Opposition to American Specialty’s Motion, or Alternatively, a Motion to Treat Defendant’s Motion
as a Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to File Motion for Attorney’s
Fees and Sanctions (“Plaintiff’s Response”). (Doc. No 14.) American Specialty filed a Reply in
Support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Response to Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to
Seek Attorneys Fees and Sanctions. (Doc. No. 15.)
For the reasons that follow, American Specialty’s Motion is DENIED; and Plaintiff’s Motion
to Treat Defendant’s Motion as a Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Procedural History and Facts1
On January 26, 2018 Orelia Jones (“Ms. Jones”) filed a complaint in the Cuyahoga County
Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CV-18-892122 including Plaintiff herein, Elegant Eglo, LLC
(“Elegant”) as a named defendant and alleging injuries and damages resulting from a May 20, 2017
incident that occurred when Elegant was transporting Ms. Jones to a doctor’s appointment. Also
named as defendants therein were Pierre Iglo (“Mr. Iglo”) and State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. (“State
Farm”). On August 21, 2018, Elegant filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Money
Damages against State Farm in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CV-18-
902479, which was consolidated with Case No. CV-18-892122. On March 12, 2019, Judge
McDonnell granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm.2 For purposes of State Farm’s
summary judgment motion, it was stipulated by and between State Farm and Elegant that the 2016
Dodge Caravan that was being operated by Mr. Iglo to transport Ms. Owens at the time of the May
20, 2017 incident was owned by Mr. Iglo and identified on the State Farm policy issued to Mr. Iglo
and Ayawovi Eglo.3 On May 14, 2019, Ms. Jones filed a First Amended Complaint in Case No.
CV-18-892122, that included Pierre Eglo and Fofoli Eglo as new party defendants, and that case
remains pending.
1 Included in the Court’s recitation of the Procedural History and Facts is information gleaned through review of the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas docket and referenced in American Specialty’s Motion. This Court “may take
judicial notice of developments in related proceedings in other courts of record,” and examine the record in the state court
in an effort to ascertain the facts. Walburn v. Lockhead Martin Corp., 431 F.3d 966, 972 n5 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Rodiz
v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 1980); and Granader v. Public Bank, 417 F.2d 75, 82, 83
(6th Cir. 1969) (citing cases), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1065, 90 S. Ct. 1503, 25 L.Ed.2d 686 (1970).
2 Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Docket, Case No. CV-18-902479, 3/12/2019 Journal Entry granting Motion
for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.
3 Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Docket, Case No. CV-1892122, Motion No. 4750381, Ex. A attached thereto.
2
On August 20, 2019 Elegant filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Money Damages
in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CV-19-920073, naming Onyx Insurance
Company, Inc. (“Onyx”) and American Specialty as defendants, which was removed to this Court on
November 14, 2019.
Elegant’s Complaint against Onyx and American Specialty alleges in relevant part that: as of
May 20, 2017 Elegant qualified as an insured under an insurance policy #:OIC-OH-0000910-03
carried by Onyx and that Onyx has wrongfully refused to indemnify it for Ms. Jones’ claim at issue
in the underlying suit, CV-18-892122 and has refused to provide it with a defense in that lawsuit;4
and Elegant retained the services of American Specialty to serve as broker/agent to obtain motor
vehicle liability insurance on the motor vehicle in question but American Specialty negligently and/or
in violation of contract, failed to obtain the coverage required, causing Elegant to suffer contractual
and tort damages, including but not limited to incurring attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, and
exposure to liability.5 The copy of the Onyx Business Auto Policy Elegant attached to its Complaint
lists four vehicles and includes a Certificate of Liability Insurance that lists American Family as the
producer of the policy;6 and the copy of the Onyx Business Auto Policy that Onyx attached to its
Answer and Counterclaim includes three listed vehicles.7 The 2016 Dodge Caravan is not included
or listed on either of these attached Onyx policies.8
Law and Argument
Standard for Judgment on the Pleadings
4 Doc. No. 1-3, PageID#9.
5 Id.
6 Doc. No. 1-3 PageID#23, 11.
7 Doc. No. 1-3 Page ID#52.
8 Doc. No. 1-3 Page ID#23, 52.
3
Motions for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) are analyzed under the same
standard as motions to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Warrior Sports, Inc. v. National
Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 623 F.3d 281, 284 (6th Cir. 2010). “For purposes of a motion for judgment
on the pleadings, all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be
taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly entitled
to judgment.” JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 582 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted). However, the court need not accept as true legal conclusions
or unwarranted factual inferences. Id. (citing Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 400 (6th Cir. 1999)).
To withstand a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, “a complaint must contain
direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements under some viable legal theory.”
Commercial Money Ctr., Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 327, 336 (6th Cir. 2007). “The
factual allegations in the complaint need to be sufficient to give notice to the defendant as to what
claims are alleged, and the plaintiff must plead ‘sufficient factual matter to render the legal claim
plausible, i.e., more than merely possible.” Fritz v. Charter Township of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718,
722 (6th Cir. 2010) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed. 2d 868 (2009).
Arguments and Analysis
Documents attached to the pleadings become part of the pleadings and may be considered on
a motion to dismiss. Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c). Thus, this Court can consider, and is considering the Onyx
Business Auto policies attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint and American Specialty’s Answer and
Counterclaim.
American Specialty argues that it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings because the 2016
Dodge Caravan was listed on the State Farm policy and is not listed on the Onyx policy. Apparently,
4
American Specialty believes that because the 2016 Dodge Caravan is listed on the State Farm
personal auto policy issued to Mr. Iglo, but is not listed on the Onyx policy, it is axiomatic that Mr.
Iglo could not have requested American Family, the agent/broker listed on the Onyx policy, to secure
insurance on the 2016 Dodge Caravan through Onyx. This Court disagrees.
As Plaintiff correctly asserts, Ohio recognizes a cause of action for an insurance agent’s
negligent failure to procure insurance.9 Plaintiff argues that the fact that the 2016 Dodge Caravan
is not listed on the Onyx policy “actually establishes that American Specialty failed to procure
insurance for that vehicle, an element of Plaintiff’s claim for negligent failure to procure insurance.”10
Simply put, this Court finds that whether or not Plaintiff requested that American Specialty obtain
insurance coverage for the 2016 Dodge Caravan is a factual issue that can and should be developed
through discovery. And, for this reason, the Court rejects American Specialty’s arguments that
Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel and that American Specialty is entitled
to sanctions, to include costs and attorney fees.
Accordingly, American Specialty’s Motion is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Motion to Treat
Defendant’s Motion as a Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Pamela A. Barker
PAMELA A. BARKER
Date: March 26, 2020 U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
9 Plaintiff’s Response, Doc. No. 14 (PageID#320), citing and quoting from Minor v. Allstate Ins. Co., 111 Ohio App,.3d
16, 675 N.E.2f 550 (2nd Dist. 1996), and other Ohio cases cited.
10 Plaintiff’s Response, Doc. No. 14 (PageID #320.)
5