3371 Reading, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc.

── 3371 Reading, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File No. 26a0226n.06 No. 25-3439 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT May 21, 2026 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) ) 3371 READING, LLC, ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ON APPEAL FROM THE ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) v. COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN ) DISTRICT OF OHIO ) LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., et al., ) OPINION Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) Before: BUSH, READLER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. BUSH, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which DAVIS, J., concurred. READLER, J. (pp. 15–25), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant 3371 Reading owned a building undergoing renovation in Cincinnati. After the structure burned down, 3371 Reading made a claim on its insurance policy. Defendant-appellee Ohio Casualty denied coverage because 3371 Reading failed to build a fence around its property, which was a construction job site. 3371 Reading sued for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud in the inducement, and a violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ODTPA), Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4165.01 to 4165.04. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants-appellees on all claims. We REVERSE as to the contract claim, AFFIRM as to the other three claims, and REMAND for further proceedings. No. 25-3439, 3371 Reading, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. I. The property where the fire occurred has an unusual design. As shown below, it is shaped like a trapezoid, with Reading Road abutting the property to the east and land owned by the Urban League abutting it to the north. A real estate development abuts the property to the west, and on the south side, a neighboring building shared a wall with the structure destroyed in the blaze. R. 49-4, Jones Dep., Exh. A, pt. 4, PageID 1008. The fire occurred during renovations to the building, requiring it to be torn down. The cause of the fire remains unknown. In denying 3371 Reading’s insurance claim, Ohio Casualty stated that “[n]o fencing was placed around the jobsite as required by the Protective Devices Endorsement [(PDE)] on the policy.” R. 52-2, Denial of Coverage Letter, PageID 2775. Fencing was relevant because the PDE requires a “Fenced Jobsite” for all “locations specified in the” Protective Devices Schedule (PDS) and schedule of coverages. R. 76-1, Insurance Policy, PageID 3761–62. “Fenced Jobsite” means “a fence, not less than six (6) feet in height, that completely surrounds the jobsite, with no openings 2 No. 25-3439, 3371 Reading, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. unless gated. All gates to such fence shall be closed and locked, to secur