Caplinger v. Raines

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Caplinger v. Raines, 2003-Ohio-2586.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY, OHIO DAVID WESLEY CAPLINGER, et al., : Plaintiffs-Appellants, : -v- : Case No. 02CA2683 : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY JASON E. RAINES, et al.,1 : Defendants-Appellees. APPEARANCES COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS: COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY: COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY: COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY: Paige J. McMahon, 42 East Fifth Street, Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 Christopher F. Johnson, One Dayton Centre, 1 South Main Street, Suite 1800, Dayton, Ohio 45402-2017 Stephen E. Chappelear, 21 East State Street, Suite 1050, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Edward M. Ryder and David K. Frank, 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 400, Columbus, Ohio 43215 CIVIL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT DATE JOURNALIZED: 5-13-03 ABELE, J. {¶1} This is an appeal from a Ross County Common Pleas Court 1 Neither Dairyland Insurance Company nor Jason E. Raines has appealed the trial court s judgment. summary judgment entered in favor of Royal and SunAlliance Personal Insurance Company ( Cincinnati ), ( Royal ), and Cincinnati Progressive Preferred Insurance Company Insurance Company ( Progressive ), defendants below and appellees herein. Before we may consider the merits of the appeal, we first must address a jurisdictional issue. If the trial court's judgment does not constitute a final appealable order, then we, as an appellate court, do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. {¶2} Ohio law provides that appellate courts have jurisdiction to review the final orders or judgments of inferior courts in their district. See, generally, Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution; R.C. 2505.02. A final order or judgment is one which affects a substantial right and, in effect, determines the action. R.C. 2505.02. If an order is not final and appealable, then an appellate court has no jurisdiction to review the matter and it must be dismissed. In the event that this jurisdictional issue is not raised by the parties involved with the appeal, then the appellate court must raise it sua sponte. See Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 86, 541 N.E.2d 64, syllabus; Whitaker-Merrell v. Geupel Co. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 184, 186, 280 N.E.2d 922. {¶3} When a trial court enters a judgment in a declaratory judgment action, the order must declare all of the parties rights and obligations in order to constitute a final, appealable order. See, e.g., Haberley v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 312, 755 N.E.2d 455; Hall v. Strzelecki (June 25, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78653. In Nickschiniski v. Sentry Ins. Co (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 185, 189, 623 N.E.2d 660, the court explained: As a general rule, a court fails to fulfill its function in a declaratory judgment action when it disposes of the issues by journalizing an entry merely sustaining or overruling a motion for summary judgment without setting forth any construction of the document or law under consideration. {¶4} In the case sub judice, in granting appellees summary judgment motions and in denying appellants cross-summary judgment motions, we do not believe that the trial court adequately set forth the parties rights and respective insurance contracts. obligations under all of the For example, the trial court determined that Mr. Caplinger is an insured under appellee Royal s policy, yet it denied appellants cross-summary judgment motion. With respect to appellee Cincinnati s policy, the trial court explicitly determined that Ty was not entitled to UIM coverage, but did not state whether Ty s father was entitled to UIM coverage. Similarly, regarding appellee Progressive s policy, the trial court explicitly determined that Ty was not entitled to UIM coverage, but 2 did not state whether Ty s mother was entitled to UIM coverage. {¶5} Accordingly, in light of the fact that the trial court s judgment did not specifically declare all of the parties rights and obligations under each of the insurance policies, we conclude that the trial court s judgment does not constitute a final, appealable order. We hasten to add, however, that we recognize that the complicated and complex nature of this action certainly 2 We note that this court sought and received supplemental briefs from the parties that address the final appealable order issue. contributed to the jurisdictional issue set forth above. {¶6} Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. JUDGMENT ENTRY It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that appellees recover of appellants costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Ross County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Evans, P.J. & Kline, J.: Concur in Judgment & Opinion For the Court BY: Peter B. Abele, Judge NOTICE TO COUNSEL Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.