the Scott Fetzer Co. v. Zurich American Insurance Company

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 23a0149n.06
No. 21-3371
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
THE SCOTT FETZER CO.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
OPINION
Before: BATCHELDER, GIBBONS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Scott Fetzer Company
appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment and attorney’s fees in this
insurance-coverage dispute. Previously, we held that the district court erred when it granted
summary judgment on Scott Fetzer’s breach-of-contract claim. The facts material to this appeal
are thoroughly set out in our prior opinion and in the district court’s opinion; we will not reiterate
them here. After the case returned to district court and the district court entered judgment in Scott
Fetzer’s favor on the breach-of-contract claim, the parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment on Scott Fetzer’s bad-faith claim. Scott Fetzer argued that there was a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether Zurich conducted a good-faith investigation into its claim. The district
court held that Scott Fetzer failed to show that there was no reasonable justification for how Zurich
handled and denied Scott Fetzer’s claim. The district court also held that Scott Fetzer was not

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 21-3371, The Scott Fetzer Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
-2-
entitled to attorney’s fees because Zurich accepted the defense and coverage with reservation of
rights, and the contract contains no provisions requiring the reimbursement of legal fees.
After carefully reviewing the law, the parties’ arguments, and the record evidence, we
conclude that the district court correctly assessed the proffered evidence and correctly applied the
law to that evidence. And, as Zurich points out, Scott Fetzer’s argument about the good-faith
investigation involves a legal issue of coverage, not a factual issue. The issuance of a full written
opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for these reasons and the
reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --