Hoyle v. DTJ Enterprises, Inc., 143 Ohio St. 3d 197

Worker Duane Hoyle fell ~14 feet from a ladder-jack scaffold while working for DTJ and Cavanaugh; he alleges the job superintendent kept the pins/bolts out of use, making the scaffold unsafe.
Hoyle sued his employers for an employer intentional tort under R.C. 2745.01; CIC (insurer) intervened seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to indemnify.
CIC’s CGL policy excluded employee workplace injuries and intentional acts; an Ohio-specific Employers Liability endorsement (purchased for extra premium) purported to cover "intentional acts" defined as acts "substantially certain" to cause injury but expressly excluded "acts committed . . . with the deliberate intent to injure."
Trial court denied summary judgment on Hoyle’s merits but granted CIC summary judgment on indemnity (finding any employer liability would require intent to injure and so is excluded). The Ninth District reversed. Supreme Court accepted CIC’s appeal.
Supreme Court held that under R.C. 2745.01 an employer-intentional-tort requires a finding that the employer intended to injure (including when intent is established by R.C. 2745.01(C)’s presumption), and the policy’s exclusion for acts with "deliberate intent to injure" therefore precludes indemnity coverage. Summary judgment for CIC was reinstated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CIC must indemnify for employer intentional torts alleged under R.C. 2745.01	Hoyle: R.C. 2745.01(C)’s rebuttable presumption of intent (deliberate removal of safety guard) establishes substantial‑certainty intent that falls within the endorsement’s definition and is not the same as the policy’s excluded "deliberate intent to injure."	CIC/Insurer: R.C. 2745.01 requires deliberate intent to injure (including when presumption applies); the endorsement excludes "deliberate intent to injure," so indemnity is barred.	Held for CIC — liability under R.C. 2745.01 necessarily rests on intent to injure, so the policy exclusion precludes any duty to indemnify.
Whether Ohio public policy or insurability principles bar indemnity for employer intentional torts generally	Hoyle/Insureds: The endorsement purchased covers substantial‑certainty intentional torts (except direct deliberate intent) so indemnity should be available where only substantial certainty is proved.	CIC: Public policy disfavors insuring intentional torts; given R.C. 2745.01 is constitutional, indemnity for deliberate employer intent is contrary to policy.	Court did not decide broadly on public policy; because the policy exclusion controlled, it declined to resolve the larger public‑policy question.

Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chems., Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 608, 433 N.E.2d 572 (Ohio 1982) (employee may sue employer for intentional torts; not preempted by workers’ compensation)
Brady v. Safety‑Kleen Corp., 61 Ohio St.3d 624, 576 N.E.2d 722 (Ohio 1991) (statutory attempts to immunize employers from intentional‑tort liability unconstitutional)
Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc., 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108 (Ohio 1991) (articulated substantial‑certainty standard elements for proving intent)
Harasyn v. Normandy Metals, Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 173, 551 N.E.2d 962 (Ohio 1990) (distinguishes direct‑intent torts from substantial‑certainty torts for insurability)
Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250, 927 N.E.2d 1066 (Ohio 2010) (upheld constitutionality of R.C. 2745.01 and explained legislature’s intent to limit recovery to deliberate intent to injure)
Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 134 Ohio St.3d 491, 983 N.E.2d 1253 (Ohio 2012) (absent deliberate intent, employer intentional‑tort claim barred; workers’ comp exclusive remedy)
Buckeye Union Ins. Co. v. New England Ins. Co., 87 Ohio St.3d 280, 720 N.E.2d 495 (Ohio 1999) (not all intentional torts are uninsurable; Harasyn carve‑out for substantial‑certainty torts)