from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, C.P.C. No.
George LLP and Matthew C. Workman, for appellee.
& Pennington Co., LPA and Christopher M. Cooper, for
1} Defendant-appellant, Stanley Harrison, appeals
from the April 12, 2017 decision of the Franklin County Court
of Common Pleas granting plaintiff-appellee's,
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, motion for summary
judgment. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2} As pertinent to this appeal, this matter arises
from an automobile accident that occurred on December 2,
2014, involving appellee's insured and appellant.
Appellee filed a complaint on May 17, 2016, asserting a claim
of negligence against appellant and seeking to recover $20,
000 it paid to its insured for their personal injuries,
medical expenses, pain and suffering, and wage loss pursuant
to its insurance policy.
3} On July 5, 2016, appellee electronically served
appellant with discovery requests, including requests for
admissions ("RFAs") pursuant to Civ.R. 36, and
provided him with 28 days to respond. In the RFAs, appellee
requested appellant to admit that: (a) an accident occurred
on December 2, 2014 between appellant and appellee's
insured, (b) appellee insured the vehicle being driven by
appellee's insured, (c) appellee's insured's
vehicle was damaged and the three occupants were injured, (d)
the reasonable value of the property damage and injuries was
$20, 000, (e) appellee paid $20, 000 to its insureds, (f)
appellee became subrogated to the rights of its insured to
the extent of its payment, (g) the damages and injuries were
the result of appellant's negligence, and (h)
appellee's insureds were not comparatively negligent.
4} Responses to the RFAs were due by August 2, 2016.
However, appellant failed to respond. On August 9, 2016,
appellee granted an extension to appellant until August 31,
2016 to respond to the discovery, including the RFAs. Again,
appellant did not respond. On October 24, 2016, appellant
provided partial responses to interrogatories and requests
for production of documents, but no responses to the RFAs.
That same day, counsel for appellee emailed appellant's
attorney explaining that responses to the RFAs had not been
received and giving an additional extension until November 4,
2016 to respond, or appellee would be filing a motion to deem
the admissions admitted. Appellant did not respond to the
email or the RFAs.
5} On November 22, 2016, appellee filed a motion to
deem the request for admissions admitted. Appellant filed a
memorandum contra and, on December 3, 2016, appellant
attempted to respond to the RFAs. On December 14, 2016, the
trial court granted appellee's motion finding that,
because appellant did not timely reply to the appellee's
RFAs under Civ.R. 36(A), the matters set forth therein were
automatically deemed admitted.
6} On December 30, 2016, appellee filed a motion for
summary judgment based on the admissions that laid out each
element of negligence, including damages. Appellee argued
that no genuine issues of material fact remained and that it
was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Appellant filed
a memorandum contra. On April 12, 2017, the trial court
granted appellee's motion for summary judgment. Appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal.