Sanders v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
2014 Ohio 2386
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Sanders appealed jury verdict for Nationwide and the trial court’s summary judgment on bad-faith claim.
- Fire destroyed Sanders’s home Oct. 29, 2006; Nationwide denied coverage under an intentional-act exclusion (HO-34A) based on W.S.’s conduct.
- W.S. admitted juvenile adjudication for attempted arson; Sanders I remanded for further proceedings to resolve intent questions.
- Dolence testified fire originated in the living room and was intentionally set; he ruled out natural ignition sources using NFPA 921 methodology.
- Trial court allowed Dolence’s testimony; jury returned for Nationwide; subsequent summary judgment dismissed Sanders’s bad-faith claim; Sanders timely appealed on multiple assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntary intoxication relevant to intent? | Sanders argued intoxication negates intent. | Nationwide argued public policy bars intoxication from defeating exclusion. | Trial court proper to deny instruction; voluntary intoxication not dispositive. |
| Admissibility of Dolence’s testimony? | Dolence’s inability to pinpoint ignition source renders opinion unreliable. | Expert testimony admissible under Evid.R. 702; Daubert principles applied. | Dolence’s testimony properly admitted; court did not abuse discretion. |
| Exclusion 1(g) instructed as intentional or criminal? | Instruction improperly equates criminal with intentional acts without nuance. | Exclusion covers intentional acts and criminal acts; adjudication admissible as evidence of intent. | Instruction properly conveyed the exclusion; no error. |
| Interrogatories submitted to jury? | Court should have submitted Sanders’s interrogatories testing intentionality. | Court acted within discretion; identical issues covered by Nationwide’s interrogatories. | No abuse of discretion; interrogatories properly refused. |
| Bad-faith claim dependent on coverage? | If breach reversed, bad-faith claim should follow. | Without coverage breach, no bad-faith claim. | Bad-faith claim affirmed as dismissed; no reversal based on breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carrollton Mfg. Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 585 (Ohio 1991) (standard for jury instruction discretionary review)
- Miller v. Bike Athletic Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 607 (Ohio 1998) (Daubert-based reliability evaluation under Evid.R. 702)