H.P. Mfg. Co. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 117 N.E.3d 146

HP Manufacturing was sued by employee Xavier Lunsford for an intentional tort based on removal of an equipment safety guard; jury found HP deliberately removed the guard, the removal caused injury, and HP failed to rebut the R.C. 2745.01(C) presumption of intent.
The jury awarded $400,000 in compensatory damages; Westfield defended HP under a reservation of rights and later denied indemnity for the verdict.
HP sued Westfield (breach of contract/declaratory judgment) and its insurance agent IPA (professional negligence) seeking indemnity and alleging procurement errors.
Westfield moved for summary judgment arguing the policy excluded coverage for bodily injury intentionally caused or aggravated by the insured; it had a contractual duty to defend until a determination of intent but no duty to indemnify the intentional-tort verdict.
IPA moved for summary judgment arguing it procured the coverage HP requested (coverage for employee claims except where intent to injure existed); HP admitted it did not request coverage for intentional acts.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Westfield and IPA; HP appealed and the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Westfield must indemnify HP for jury verdict finding employer intentionally caused injury under R.C. 2745.01(C)	HP: Rebuttable presumption of intent is "mere presumption" and does not trigger the policy exclusion; insurer owed indemnity.	Westfield: Jury finding that HP failed to rebut presumption is equivalent to a finding of intent; policy excludes intentional acts so no duty to indemnify.	Held: No duty to indemnify; presumption proof equals proof of intent per Hoyle, so exclusion applies.
Whether Westfield breached by defending or by not intervening/seeking declaration earlier	HP: Westfield wrongfully defended (or should have intervened) despite knowing claim was excluded, and defense hindered settlement.	Westfield: Policy expressly required defense until determination of intent; it fulfilled its duty and had no obligation to fund settlement of an intentional-tort claim.	Held: Westfield properly defended under policy and did not breach.
Whether IPA was professionally negligent in procuring coverage for HP	HP: IPA procured illusory coverage or failed to obtain coverage for all employee liability, so breached duty.	IPA: HP requested coverage that excluded intentional acts; jury precluded HP from denying intent; policy provided meaningful benefit (defense).	Held: IPA not negligent; collateral estoppel bars relitigation of HP's intent and HP admitted it did not request coverage for intentional acts; policy not illusory.

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. DTJ Ents., Inc. (In re Hoyle), 143 Ohio St.3d 197, 36 N.E.3d 122 (Ohio 2015) (proof via R.C. 2745.01(C) presumption is equivalent to proof of intent to injure)
Ward v. United Foundries, Inc., 129 Ohio St.3d 292, 951 N.E.2d 770 (Ohio 2011) (insurer may refuse to defend when all claims fall within an exclusion; jury determination not always required)
Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 125 Ohio St.3d 280, 927 N.E.2d 1092 (Ohio 2010) (statutory framework and scope of R.C. 2745.01 remedies)
Irondale Indus. Contrs. v. Virginia Sur. Co., 754 F. Supp. 2d 927 (N.D. Ohio 2010) (R.C. 2745.01(C) is an evidentiary presumption illustrating intent, not a separate tort)