# Kunz v. Buckeye Union Ins.

> Ohio Supreme Court · July 21, 1982 · 1 Ohio St. 3d 79

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757711

## Case

- **Full name:** Kunz v. Buckeye Union Ins. Co. Ingram
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 21, 1982
- **Citations:** 1 Ohio St. 3d 79; 1 Ohio B. 117; 437 N.E.2d 1194; 1982 Ohio LEXIS 706
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Krupansky
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Krupansky, Locher, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 66 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757711

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that the action was “roughly analogous to a malpractice action” and concluding that it was grounded in tort rather than contract because “[t]he relationship between the parties * * * called for the performance of certain services by the insurance agent, and any breach …
- finding tort cause of action accrued as of date that damages were incurred, and not earlier date when duty was breached

## Opinion text

Krupansky, J.,
dissenting. While I agree the instant action was grounded in tort, I disagree with the majority as to when the cause of action accrued. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
In my opinion, appellants’ cause of action accrued at the latest on April 1, 1973, the date appellants renewed the policy. It was on that date appellees allegedly committed a wrongful act by failing to procure the requested coverage. At that point, appellants had a right of action against appellees. If they had discovered the omission which was apparent on the face of their policy, they could have pursued appellees for the difference in value between a policy which included the requested coverage and the value of the policy as issued. Since the alleged wrongful act and the accrual of appellants’ right of action occurred more than four years before appellants filed the instant lawsuit, appellants’ suit is barred by the statute of limitations. I would, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Locher, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757711. Public record. Not legal advice.