Case Explained: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 3371 READING, LLC v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC.; OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; JONATHAN JONES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO AMENDED OPINION

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-29 The sixth-circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim but affirmed summary judgment on the bad faith, fraudulent inducement, and Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ODTPA) claims, remanding the case for further proceedings. The court held that the insurance policy’s requirement to erect a fence “completely surrounding” the jobsite was unenforceable because performance was physically impossible; the property shared a wall with a neighboring building, making it impossible to enclose all four sides without trespassing or obtaining easements. Applying Ohio law regarding illusory contracts, the court ruled that a provision rendering coverage impossible to obtain is void, thereby entitling the plaintiff to coverage for the fire loss. Regarding the other claims, the court found no evidence of bad faith because the insurer’s interpretation of the ambiguous policy was plausible and negligence does not constitute fraud. Furthermore, the court dismissed the fraudulent inducement claim as it relied on predictions of future performance rather than misrepresentations of existing facts, and rejected the ODTPA claim because the statute regulates unfair competition and false advertising rather than consumer fraud, which is governed by the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.