2022 Ohio 2098
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Altercation at homeowner Inabnitt's house caused Seth Doughman to fall down stairs and suffer serious physical injuries; Inabnitt was criminally convicted of felonious assault.
- Seth and his wife sued Inabnitt in civil court alleging assault and battery, negligence, IIED, NIED, punitive damages, and loss of consortium.
- Inabnitt had a homeowner policy with Allstate providing coverage for "damages because of bodily injury," but excluding bodily injury "intended by, or which may reasonably be expected to result from the intentional or criminal acts" of an insured.
- Allstate sought a declaratory judgment and summary judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify based on the policy exclusion; the trial court denied summary judgment as to assault/battery, negligence, punitive damages, and loss of consortium, but granted it as to IIED and NIED (finding emotional distress not a "bodily injury").
- On appeal, the Twelfth District reversed in part and affirmed in part: it held the intentional-or-criminal-acts exclusion barred coverage for assault/battery, negligence, punitive damages, and loss of consortium, and affirmed no coverage for IIED and NIED.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allstate must defend/indemnify assault & battery claim | Doughmans/Inabnitt: conviction does not automatically trigger exclusion; affidavit and sentencing remarks create a dispute about intent | Allstate: felonious-assault conviction shows insured acted "knowingly" and thus reasonably expected bodily injury under the policy exclusion | Exclusion applies — conviction establishes knowing conduct and reasonably-expected injury; no duty to defend or indemnify |
| Whether negligence claim is covered | Doughmans: fifth-count labeled negligence, which would ordinarily be covered | Allstate: claim arises from same criminal conduct that produced felonious-assault conviction, so exclusion applies despite label | Exclusion precludes coverage for negligence claim because its core rests on criminal act |
| Whether IIED/NIED (emotional distress) claims are covered | Inabnitt: emotional-distress claims flow from Seth’s bodily injury and thus are within policy coverage | Allstate: emotional distress is not "bodily injury" under the policy; policy covers physical harm only | Affirmed: emotional distress is not bodily injury here; no duty to defend or indemnify for IIED/NIED |
| Whether punitive damages and loss of consortium are covered | Doughmans: sought those damages in complaint | Allstate: both are derivative of primary claims and survive only if primary claims are covered | Excluded — derivative claims fail where underlying claims are excluded; no coverage |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 128 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2010) (limits doctrine of inferred intent to acts that necessarily result in the harm)
- Physicians Ins. Co. v. Swanson, 58 Ohio St.3d 189 (Ohio 1991) (insurer must show the injury itself was expected or intended to avoid coverage)
- Granger v. Auto-Owners Ins., 144 Ohio St.3d 57 (Ohio 2015) (analyzed when insured "reasonably expected" injury from conduct)
- Preferred Risk Ins. Co. v. Gill, 30 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1987) (intentional-act exclusion can bar coverage for harms arising from wrongful acts)
- Tomlinson v. Skolnik, 44 Ohio St.3d 11 (Ohio 1989) ("bodily injury" denotes physical injury from external violence; emotional injuries differ)
- Hybud Equip. Corp. v. Sphere Drake Ins. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 657 (Ohio 1992) (exclusionary clauses are construed narrowly but courts must honor their obvious intent)