2013 Ohio 759
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Chiquita filed a declaratory judgment seeking defense/coverage from insurers for tort claims related to financing terrorists from 1989–2004.
- National Union insured Chiquita under policies July 1992–July 2000; other insurers settled with Chiquita.
- Underlying complaints alleged intentional conduct by Chiquita, with some negligence claims referenced but centered on intentional acts.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment to Chiquita on duty to defend; bench trial later on defense costs and indemnity issues.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding National Union had no duty to defend or indemnify because the alleged occurrences were outside the policies’ coverage.
- Court remanded to enter judgment for National Union and consider defense-cost repayment; second assignment of error deemed moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether National Union had a duty to defend given alleged occurrences | Chiquita contends the complaints potentially fall within policy coverage | National Union argues the acts are outside coverage as intentional and outside the territory | No duty to defend; occurrences not within coverage territory. |
| Location of the occurrence and its impact on coverage territory | Chiquita's conduct caused harm within policy territory | Harm occurred in Colombia; location of injury governs coverage | Injury location, not precipitating acts, controls; occurrences outside territory. |
| Exclusions for intended injuries and applicability given underlying claims | Exclusions may not bar defense if occurrences are covered | Exclusions not reached because no occurrences within territory | Exclusions not reached; not within coverage; no duty to defend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gearing v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 76 Ohio St.3d 34 (1996) (occurrence requires accident, not intentional acts; insurer duty depends on coverage scope)
- Sharonville v. Amer. Emp. Ins. Co., 109 Ohio St.3d 186 (2006) (duty to defend broader than indemnity; defense may be required for potentially covered claims)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Factfinder Mkting. Research, Inc., 168 Ohio App.3d 391 (2006) (defense obligation persists for potentially covered claims; postures differ by case)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. White, 122 Ohio St.3d 562 (2009) (occurrence defined as accident; separate negligence of other insured may be covered)
- ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. RC2 Corp., Inc., 600 F.3d 763 (7th Cir.2010) (location of injury determines occurrence for coverage)
- CACI Internatl., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 566 F.3d 150 (4th Cir.2009) (place-of-injury approach to insurance coverage; cautions against expansive domestic liability)