Allstate Insurance v. Campbell
942 N.E.2d 1090
Ohio2010Background
- Teens placed a Styrofoam target deer on a hillcrest road at night, 55 mph zone, with motorists unaware until 15–30 yards away.
- Robert Roby and Dustin Zachariah were seriously injured when Roby swerved to avoid the deer; lawsuits followed against teens, parents, and insurers.
- Insurance declaratory-judgment actions sought to determine whether insurers must defend/indemnify under the youths’ policies.
- Trial court granted summary judgment by inferring intent to harm as a matter of law based on conduct being substantially certain to cause harm.
- Court of Appeals reversed, finding genuine issues about the boys’ intent and whether the actions fell within policy exclusions.
- Court addresses whether inferred intent can apply beyond murder/molestation and what standard governs in applying intentional-act exclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of inferred intent beyond murder/sexual acts | Campbell argues inferred intent should extend to this case. | Insurers argue inference should be limited to defined categories. | Inferred intent may apply beyond those cases only when harm is intrinsically tied to the act. |
| Standard for inferring intent (substantial certainty vs intrinsic linkage) | Buckeye Union-like substantial-certainty test supports inference. | Court should rely on intrinsic tie between act and harm. | Doctrine applies when the act necessarily results in the harm; intrinsic linkage governs, not mere substantial certainty. |
| Objective vs subjective standard for policy exclusions (Allstate/Erie/Grange vs American Southern) | Exclusions are objective; intent must be inferred. | Subjective intent is irrelevant if strictly objective standard applies. | Remand required to determine intent under Allstate/Erie/Grange; American Southern is no coverage as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gill, 30 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1987) (injury must be intended or expected to exclude coverage)
- Swanson, 58 Ohio St.3d 189 (Ohio 1991) (injury must be expected or intended; resulting injury matters)
- Gearing, 76 Ohio St.3d 34 (Ohio 1996) (inferred intent when harm is substantially certain to result)
- Buckeye Union, 87 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1999) (concurring view on substantial-certainty vs settled doctrine)