# LGR Realty, Inc. v. Frank & London Ins. Agency

> Ohio Supreme Court · January 16, 2018 · 2018 Ohio 334

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7083836

## Case

- **Full name:** LGR Realty, Inc. v. Frank and London Insurance Agency
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 16, 2018
- **Citations:** 2018 Ohio 334; 152 Ohio St. 3d 517; 98 N.E.3d 241
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Robb
- **Judges:** Dewine, Kennedy, Robb
- **Cited by:** 36 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/7083836

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing ambiguities in Ohio law but noting Ohio cases holding that the discovery rule does not apply in any professional negligence suit

## Opinion text

Robb, J., dissenting.
{¶ 47} I respectfully dissent because I disagree with the majority's conclusion that a cause of action for professional negligence against an insurance agency accrues on the date the policy is issued. "To establish actionable negligence, one must show * * * the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty and injury resulting proximately therefrom." (Emphasis added.) Mussivand v. David , 45 Ohio St.3d 314 , 318, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989). Until there is "actionable negligence," the statute of limitations should not begin to run. Allowing the statute of limitations to start running on the date of the breach of duty is equivalent to promulgating a rule that automatically attributes an injury when a duty has not been fulfilled. A cause of action does not accrue until there is a discernible injury proximately caused by the breach of duty. Here, the cause of action accrued on *528 the date of the denial of the claim, i.e., when there was an injury proximately caused by the agency's failure to meet its duty. Being uninsured is not in itself an injury; instead, it merely exposes the uninsured to a risk of injury. Therefore, the complaint was filed within the statute of limitations and should not have been dismissed on those grounds.
O'Neill, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7083836. Public record. Not legal advice.