State Farm v. Advanced Impounding & Recovery Services (2006)
Decided February 21, 2006. The complete official nine-page opinion was independently retrieved on 2026-10-17. The earlier full retrieval at https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2006/2006-Ohio-760.pdf remains historical evidence; a later failed mirror fetch does not invalidate it.
Source note (2026-10-18):
- source replaced 2026-10-18: static.case.law robots-disallowed; official copy at Supreme Court of Ohio Reporter of Decisions (2006-Ohio-760) (replaces
https://static.case.law/ohio-app-3d/165/cases/0718-01.json; retrieval dates stated elsewhere on this page refer to the earlier copy).
Facts
AIRS towed a car from a private lot in July 2003. State Farm paid its insured’s theft claim and acquired title. Months later the tower demanded towing/storage charges. State Farm requested the car and offered storage payment from discovery of its location. AIRS instead obtained an unclaimed-vehicle title under the then-current R.C. 4505.101. State Farm sued for conversion (¶¶2–5).
Holding and reasoning
The old statute required requested repair or an agreed storage term, which the private-lot tow did not establish (¶10). Disputing demanded fees while requesting return was not abandonment (¶11). The tower’s improper title acquisition constituted conversion, so summary judgment on liability was affirmed (¶12).
The damages award was reversed: an earlier insurance payout did not establish value at conversion (¶13). Summary judgment against the tower’s fee counterclaim was also reversed because whether the car was stolen remained disputed (¶¶14–16). The disposition was affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded (¶20).
Practical impact and current statutory fit
This was a conversion action against the tower, not an adjudication of an innocent downstream purchaser’s title. Current R.C. 4505.101 has separate agreed-repair/storage and private-tow branches. 4505.104 and 4513.603 add other conditional title routes. Their amendments limit application of the old statutory-scope holding; amendment alone is not evidence of judicial distinguishing.
Later treatment
The full official majority opinion in Henry v. City of Middletown (6th Cir. 2016), pp.10–11, invokes the nonabandonment reasoning. Its constitutional analysis concerns the historical impound regime. bmi-federal-credit-union-v-charlton-oh-2017, ¶11, cites State Farm for summary-judgment review, not the conversion holding.
The State Farm discussion in Barnett-McCurdy v. H. & S. Automotive, 2008-Ohio-4874, ¶¶25–30, is in a dissent; the majority ruled against the untitled claimant. Comprehensive appellate history and later merits treatment remain needs_verification. Opinion-body verification does not certify current good-law status.
Applies in →
ohio · motor-vehicles · towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Read the full opinion and current law; later authority may limit this decision.