Cincinnati Ins. Cos. v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co.
18 N.E.3d 875
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- G&S Electric installed wiring in the Witscheys’ home during construction; Cincinnati insured G&S during an earlier period, Motorists insured G&S during a later policy period, and G&S went out of business before the 2006 fire.
- On October 6, 2006 a fire severely damaged the home; Nationwide (the Witscheys’ insurer) paid >$882,000 and sued G&S alleging negligent installation of wiring that malfunctioned and caused the fire.
- At first both Cincinnati and Motorists declined to defend G&S because the fire occurred after both policy periods; Cincinnati later reversed after this court’s Hanna decision and defended/settled the claim for $100,000.
- Cincinnati filed a re-filed contribution claim against Motorists seeking 75% of settlement, fees and costs; both sides moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Motorists, concluding no property damage occurred during Motorists’ policy period and thus no duty to defend; Cincinnati appealed.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the Nationwide complaint and subsequent expert evidence left open a possibility of continuous property damage during the policy period and therefore Motorists could not be relieved of a duty to defend at summary judgment (exclusions not decided).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Motorists had a duty to defend G&S under its CGL policy | Cincinnati: the complaint and expert evidence supported a continuous-trigger theory — ongoing damage (charring/degradation) during the policy period could have caused the later fire, so Motorists must defend | Motorists: the fire (property damage) happened after the policy period; no property damage occurred during the policy period, so no duty to defend | Reversed trial court: genuine possibility the complaint and later expert evidence implicated property damage during the policy period; duty to defend could arise, so summary judgment for Motorists was improper (exclusions not resolved) |
| Whether Westfield eliminated coverage theories relied on by Cincinnati | Cincinnati: Hanna’s continuous-trigger approach could apply to collateral damages; Westfield does not negate coverage where complaint alleges consequential damages (fire) rather than only defective work | Motorists: Westfield precludes coverage for defective workmanship claims, undermining Hanna-based defense obligation | Court: Westfield did not negate the duty-to-defend analysis here because Nationwide sought damages for consequential harm (fire), not only defective work; Westfield did not defeat Cincinnati’s position at summary judgment |
| Whether the Nationwide complaint alone foreclosed coverage (four-corners rule) | Cincinnati: complaint allegations (and later evidence) reasonably could encompass property damage during Motorists’ policy period, so Motorists must defend | Motorists: complaint alleges only a 2006 fire, outside the policy period, so pleadings show no coverage | Court: Complaint did not clearly and indisputably exclude coverage; under Ohio precedent the pleadings (and evidence developed later) can trigger a duty to defend; insurer must defend potentially covered claims |
| Whether expert evidence (Dolence) was necessary to create a coverage issue | Cincinnati: Dolence’s opinions that wiring degradation/pyrophoric charring occurred over time supported a continuous-damage theory implicating earlier policy periods | Motorists: without the expert opinion, Cincinnati could not show property damage during the policy period | Court: Dolence’s report and deposition strengthened the reasonable possibility of ongoing damage during the policy period and supported that the duty to defend could arise; the court remanded without resolving admissibility/exclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 9 Ohio St.3d 177 (insurer must defend if complaint’s allegations potentially fall within coverage)
- Motorists Mut. v. Trainor, 33 Ohio St.2d 41 (test for duty to defend: scope of complaint’s allegations)
- Anders v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 156 (duty to defend may arise after filing of complaint based on later-developing facts)
- Ward v. United Foundries, Inc., 129 Ohio St.3d 292 (duty to defend broader than duty to indemnify; insurer need not defend only where claims are clearly outside coverage)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Sys., Inc., 133 Ohio St.3d 476 (defective construction/workmanship claims are not property damage caused by an occurrence under a CGL policy)