Hoyle v. DTJ Ents., Inc.
2013 Ohio 3223
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2008 Duane Hoyle fell ~13 feet from a scaffold while employed by DTJ and Cavanaugh and sued them for a workplace intentional tort. DTJ and Cavanaugh were insured by The Cincinnati Insurance Companies (Cincinnati Insurance).
- Cincinnati Insurance intervened and sought a declaratory judgment that its policy excluded coverage for Hoyle’s claim. The policy had an Employers Liability endorsement that covered certain "intentional acts" but excluded acts committed with "deliberate intent to injure."
- R.C. 2745.01(C) creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to injure when an employer deliberately removes a safety guard and an injury results; Hoyle’s remaining claim alleged deliberate removal of a safety guard.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Cincinnati Insurance, concluding Hoyle would have to prove "deliberate intent" and thus any recovery would fall within the policy’s deliberate-intent exclusion. The court entered final judgment under Civ.R. 54(B).
- The Ninth District reversed, holding a genuine issue of material fact exists whether a statutory presumption under R.C. 2745.01(C) would produce a claim that falls within the policy’s deliberate-intent exclusion, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cincinnati Insurance was entitled to summary judgment because the policy excludes coverage for acts committed with deliberate intent to injure | Hoyle: R.C. 2745.01(C) allows recovery on proof only of deliberate removal of a safety guard; intent to injure is presumed and plaintiff may prevail without proving deliberate intent to injure, so the insurer’s exclusion may not apply | Cincinnati Ins.: R.C. 2745.01 requires deliberate intent (specific intent) and the policy exclusion for "deliberate intent to injure" therefore precludes coverage for any successful §2745.01 claim | Reversed trial court: material factual issues remain whether a §2745.01(C) presumption results in a claim falling within the policy’s deliberate-intent exclusion; summary judgment for insurer was improper |
| Whether the statutory rebuttable presumption of intent under R.C. 2745.01(C) should be treated as "deliberate intent" for purposes of the policy exclusion | Hoyle: The presumption only shifts the burden to the employer; if unrebutted the employee can win without proof of deliberate intent to injure | Cincinnati Ins.: The presumption establishes the same deliberate-intent standard used in §2745.01(B), so any claim proved under the presumption is excluded by the policy | Ninth Dist.: The statutory presumption does not automatically equate to the policy’s separate contractual term "deliberate intent to injure," so whether the exclusion applies is a fact question for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary-judgment standard)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Civ.R. 56 standard)
- Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc., 59 Ohio St.3d 115 (common-law test for employer intentional tort)
- Jones v. VIP Dev. Co., 15 Ohio St.3d 90 (intent defined as intent to injure or belief injury substantially certain)
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (statutory interpretation: R.C. 2745.01 requires specific/deliberate intent)
- Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 134 Ohio St.3d 491 (R.C. 2745.01 limits recovery to deliberate intent; §(C) presumption not applicable in that case)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (contract interpretation: plain and ordinary meaning governs)
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Guman Bros. Farm, 73 Ohio St.3d 107 (interpretation of insurance contracts)