Appeals Court Revives Crash Victim's Bad-Faith Claim Against Her Own Insurer

Published July 16, 2025 · Ohio Appeals Courts

You pay premiums for years so that your own insurance company will be there when you are badly hurt. Then the crash happens, the medical bills pile up, and the company that sold you the policy stops paying and starts looking for a reason it never has to. On July 1, 2025, an Ohio appeals court refused to let one insurer use a statute-of-limitations argument to make that problem disappear.

The case is Berry v. Mullet, 2025-Ohio-2345 (5th Dist.), decided together with a companion appeal, 2025-Ohio-2346. It arose from a crash in Holmes County, but the lessons apply to anyone in the Dayton area who has had to fight their own carrier.

What happened

In June 2014, a driver failed to stop at a stop sign in Holmes County and hit a car driven by a Michigan couple. The wife was severely injured. She was flown by helicopter to Akron General Hospital, underwent several surgeries, and, according to the court, is still receiving treatment more than a decade later.

The at-fault driver's liability coverage was not enough to cover her injuries, which made him an underinsured motorist under her own policy. That policy was a Michigan no-fault policy with personal injury protection (PIP), a coverage that can pay an injured person's medical expenses for life. PIP works much like the medical payments coverage on an Ohio policy, only far broader.

The couple sued in 2016 for negligence against the at-fault driver and for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits against their insurer. In early 2018 they learned the insurer was refusing to pay her submitted medical bills, so they added claims for bad faith and wrongful termination of PIP benefits. The case was later dismissed without prejudice and refiled in 2023.

The insurer's argument: a one-year clock from another state

Back in the trial court, the insurer argued that Michigan's one-year limit on suits for PIP benefits, combined with Ohio's "borrowing statute," cut off any claim for medical expenses incurred before June 16, 2021. It also argued that Michigan law governed the bad-faith claim and that Michigan does not recognize bad faith as a separate tort. The trial court agreed on both points and threw out every claim against the insurer.

Ohio's borrowing statute, R.C. 2305.03(B), says that a "tort action" that arose in another state cannot be brought in Ohio if the time limit has expired under either that state's law or Ohio's. In practice it means the shorter deadline wins.

What the appeals court decided

The Fifth District reversed, in two unanimous opinions written by Judge King.

Claims on your own policy are contract claims. The borrowing statute applies only to tort actions, and Ohio law defines that term to exclude claims for breach of contract. The court held that the claims for medical benefits and UIM benefits were contractual. The insurer had to pay those benefits, if at all, only "because of the policy it sold them," as the court put it. So the borrowing statute did not apply, and the trial court's cutoff date was wrong.

The bad-faith claim was filed in time. The court agreed that bad faith is a tort under Ohio law and that this one arose in Michigan. But even borrowing Michigan's three-year limit for tort claims, the couple's 2018 amendment came within that period. For purposes of the borrowing statute, the bad-faith claim was timely.

Other rulings for the insurer were reversed too. The court held that the trial court should not have granted summary judgment on the insurer's coordination-of-benefits argument, which tried to shift the medical bills to the family's union health plan, or on its claim that the injured woman had misrepresented her abilities. In the companion appeal, the court also held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to let her replace a medical expert who had died before the case was refiled. Reminding everyone that "courts should decide cases on the merits," it reinstated her negligence claim against the at-fault driver as well.

An honest note on what remains

This was not a final victory, and it would be wrong to describe it as one. The appeals court reversed rulings that ended the case early and sent it back for further proceedings. It specifically left open whether Ohio or Michigan law will govern the bad-faith claim, and it acknowledged that the claim may not survive if Michigan law applies. The question the court answered was narrower but important: an insurer cannot use the borrowing statute to erase claims that arise from the policy it sold.

Why this matters if you are hurt in Ohio

Your own insurer owes you more than a stranger's insurer does. When you make a UIM, uninsured motorist, or medical payments claim, your own company is the one deciding whether to pay. Ohio law treats an insurer's unjustified refusal to pay its own customer as a tort, separate from the contract claim. We explained that rule, and why the claims file matters in proving it, in our post on the Ohio Supreme Court's 2023 bad-faith decision. Our guide chapter on dealing with insurance adjusters describes what good-faith claim handling requires.

Deadlines for policy claims are not the same as deadlines for injury claims. A claim for benefits under your own policy is a contract claim. Ohio's ordinary injury deadline does not control it, and neither does the borrowing statute. But your policy may contain its own deadline. Many Ohio auto policies require a UM/UIM claim or suit within three years of the crash, a rule described in our guide chapter on using your own insurance. Learn which clock applies to each claim before any of them runs.

Out-of-state drivers hurt in Ohio need Ohio counsel. Visitors on I-70 and I-75, travelers with policies written in Michigan, Indiana or Kentucky, and students and workers who keep a home-state policy all face this problem. Two states' laws may apply, and an insurer will argue for whichever set is worse for you. The reverse is true for Ohioans hurt while traveling: a tort claim that arose in another state can be cut off by that state's shorter deadline.

Intersection crashes cause catastrophic injuries. A driver who runs a stop sign hits at full speed, usually into the side of another car. Those are the crashes that turn into lifetime medical claims, and the ones where the at-fault driver's coverage runs out first. Our page on intersection collisions explains how fault is proven in these cases.

What this means for you

If your own insurer has stopped paying medical bills, delayed a UIM claim, or told you a deadline has passed, do not take the company's word for it. Get a copy of your full policy and every denial letter, and have them reviewed. Whether a claim sounds in contract or tort, and which state's law applies, can decide whether you are paid at all. Our UM/UIM claims page explains the coverages these disputes usually involve.