Opinion
Case No. 2019-00887AD
12-20-2019
THE PHOENIX INSURANCE CO Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} Plaintiff, The Phoenix Insurance Company, as subrogee of P.P. Midwest Transport, Inc., filed a complaint against defendant, Ohio Department of Transportation ("ODOT"). Plaintiff asserted that it compensated its insurer, Midwest Transport, Inc., for damages sustained by its 2019 Nissan Rogue, which occurred on June 22, 2019 while traveling northbound on Interstate Route ("IR") 76, through the toll plaza. The gate arm of the toll plaza struck the vehicle in question causing $2,188.98 in damages. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee.
{¶2} Defendant submitted an Investigation Report denying liability since the damage-causing event occurred on the Ohio Turnpike. This road is not within the maintenance jurisdiction of defendant.
{¶3} R.C. 5537.04(A)(4) in pertinent part states:
"(A) The Ohio Turnpike Commission may do any of the following:
"(4) Sue and be sued in its own name, plead and be impleaded, provided any actions against the commission shall be brought in the court of common pleas of the county in which the principal office of the commission is located, or in the court of common pleas of the county in which the cause of action arose if that county is located within this state, and all summonses, exceptions, and notices of every kind shall be served on the commission by leaving a copy thereof at its principal office with the secretary-treasurer or executive director of the commission . . ."
{¶4} It is well settled that the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over matters involving the Ohio Turnpike Commission. Zaniewski v. Ohio Turnpike Commission, 94-07331 (1994); Citizens Insurance Co. of America v. Ohio Turnpike Commission, 88-10368-AD (1989); Prime Inc. v. Ohio Turnpike Commission, 84-01186-AD (1984).
{¶5} Finally, R.C. 2743.02(D) prohibits an insurance company from bringing a subrogation claim against the state. See Community Insurance v. Ohio Department of Transportation, 92 Ohio St.3d 376, 378-379, 2001-Ohio-208, 750 N.E.2d 573. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, plaintiff's claim should be denied.
{¶6} R.C. 2743.02(D) in pertinent part states:
"Recoveries against the state shall be reduced by the aggregate of insurance proceeds, disability award, or other collateral recovery received by the claimant . . ."
{¶7} The Ohio Supreme Court in Community Insurance Company v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation, 92 Ohio St. 3d 376, 378-379, 2001-Ohio-208, 750 N.E. 2d 573 stated:
"We have previously recognized that the state's purpose in waiving political subdivision immunity was twofold: to compensate uninsured victims while also preserving public resources. The 'state can make the rational determination to permit recovery by an unprotected victim by deny subrogation to insurance carriers who can make actuarial computations and adjust premiums to compensate for payments to policyholders who suffer damage at the hands of a political subdivision.' Menefee v. Queen City Metro, 49 Ohio St. 3d 27, 29, 550 N.E. 2d 181, 183 (1990).
"Even if it were appropriate in this case to inquire into legislative intent to resolve a statutory ambiguity, we find no support for concluding that the General Assembly intended that subrogation claims against the state should be treated differently from subrogation claims against political subdivisions. Nor do we believe that R.C. 2743.02(D) was intended to
operate in such a way as to shift financial risk to the state and away from insurers, such as Community.
"We therefore hold that an insurer who has been granted a right of subrogation by a person on whose behalf the insurer has paid medical expenses incurred as the result of tortious conduct of the state is subject to R.C. 2743.02(D), which mandates reduction in recoveries against the state by the 'aggregate of insurance proceeds, disability award, or other collateral recovery received by the claimant.'"
{¶8} Accordingly, in conjunction with the Supreme Court's hold in Community, I find plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against the defendant.
{¶9} Furthermore, the highway where the damage-causing incident occurred on IR 76 is maintained by the Ohio Turnpike Commission, not ODOT. ODOT has no responsibility to maintain IR 76, where the damage causing event occurred.
{¶10} Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. THE PHOENIX INSURANCE CO Plaintiff
v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant Case No. 2019-00887AD Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶11} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.
/s/_________
DANIEL R. BORCHERT
Deputy Clerk Filed 12/20/19
Sent to S.C. reporter 3/4/20