Mendoza v. Seger

Citation: 2019 Ohio 4284Docket: L-19-1071

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; October 18, 2019; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In Mendoza v. Seger, 2019-Ohio-4284, the Ohio Court of Appeals addressed an appeal from the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, which had granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed a re-filed case with prejudice. The appellant, Anita N. Mendoza, was involved in a motor vehicle accident with uninsured driver Justin Lee Seger in October 2015. Mendoza filed a lawsuit on November 30, 2018, against Seger and her insurer, Progressive Specialty Insurance Company, while also naming the Ohio Department of Medicaid due to a lien on any damages awarded.

In her complaint, Mendoza alleged negligence against Seger and sought uninsured motorist coverage from Progressive, but did not mention a prior related action or attach her insurance policy. Progressive admitted to the existence of a policy but denied coverage and raised affirmative defenses, including a statute of limitations claim. The Ohio Department of Medicaid filed an answer asserting its right to recover medical costs.

Progressive later moved for judgment on the pleadings, claiming Mendoza had failed to refile her complaint in accordance with Ohio’s Savings Statute, citing a prior case from 2017 for the first time. Mendoza did not respond to this motion. The trial court denied Progressive's motion but incorrectly addressed the merits of the case rather than focusing solely on the sufficiency of Mendoza's claims. The court noted the prior case's dismissal date and found that Mendoza's re-filing was timely under the statute. The appellate court ultimately reversed the trial court's decision, indicating that the trial court had considered matters beyond the pleadings.

On March 3, 2019, Progressive filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that Mendoza's dismissal of her case on November 16, 2017, was valid despite being filed under an incorrect case number. Progressive submitted an entry file-stamped on that date, showing the correct case caption but an incorrect case number (CI0201702650). The trial court, upon reviewing this exhibit, granted Progressive's motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing all claims with prejudice, despite Seger's default and the Department of Medicaid's subrogation interest. Mendoza appealed this dismissal, contending that the court erred in ruling her case was filed outside the required timeframe. 

Mendoza argued that her 2018 refiling was timely, as she had dismissed the 2017 case on November 16, 2017, and was directed to use the correct case number on December 7, 2017. In contrast, Progressive challenged the validity of Mendoza's argument. The appeal, however, did not allow for a review of the merits regarding the timeliness of the re-filing.

Progressive's motion for judgment on the pleadings was based on Civ.R. 12(C), which only addresses legal questions. The court applies a de novo standard in reviewing such motions, treating all allegations in the complaint as true and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. To succeed on a statute of limitations defense, the pleadings must clearly demonstrate that the complaint is untimely; otherwise, a dismissal based on this defense would be improper. Mendoza's claims included negligence against Seger due to a 2015 car accident and a contractual claim for uninsured motorist coverage from Progressive, with the Department of Medicaid included for its subrogation interest in any recovery.

Mendoza served Seger with her pleading on December 10, 2018, and Seger did not respond, thereby waiving any statute of limitations defense. Even if the statute could bar Mendoza's negligence claim, the defense was forfeited as it wasn't raised in the pleadings. Consequently, Mendoza's claim was deemed sufficient, and the Department of Medicaid’s subrogation interest remained unresolved. The trial court incorrectly dismissed these claims based on Progressive's motion.

Mendoza also filed a contract claim against Progressive for UM/UIM coverage under her insurance policy. According to R.C. 3937.18(H), claims must be filed within three years of the accident or one year after the liability insurer's insolvency, whichever is later. Although Progressive could modify this limitations period within its policy, it did not explicitly reference any such terms in the pleadings.

Progressive acknowledged that Mendoza's case was a re-filed action but contended she failed to re-file within the one-year limit of the savings statute, R.C. 2305.19. However, the prior action and its dismissals were not included in the pleadings, rendering them beyond the court's consideration. The court cannot consider external documents when ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The trial court improperly relied on these external matters, including the prior suit and its dismissal, which were not established in the pleadings. As a result, the court erred in dismissing Mendoza’s claim against Progressive, leading to the conclusion that Mendoza's assignment of error was valid. The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas was reversed, and costs of the appeal were assigned to the appellee. A certified copy of this entry serves as the mandate.