Sanders v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
2011 Ohio 1933
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Sanders owned improved real property insured by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.; fire destroyed the home on Oct 29, 2006.
- Nationwide investigated and concluded the fire was intentionally set by Sanders’ 17-year-old son, W.S.
- Nationwide denied coverage on July 24, 2007 citing the HO-34A policy exclusion for intentional acts.
- On May 19, 2009 Sanders filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith; May 19, 2010 trial court granted Nationwide summary judgment and denied Sanders’ partial summary judgment.
- Appellate review is de novo; the court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Safeco applies to require coverage for Sanders. | Sanders, as innocent co-insured, should be covered. | Safeco controls only limited scenarios and excludes this case. | First assignment overruled; Safeco inapplicable. |
| Whether W.S.'s juvenile delinquency adjudication is admissible to show intent. | Juv.R. 37(B) limits admissibility; adjudication should be excluded. | Adjudication is admissible to show intent under governing statutes. | Second assignment overruled; adjudication admissible. |
| Does W.S.'s delinquency evidence create a genuine issue of material fact on intent to damage the home? | Evidence could be rebutted; at most minor evidence of intent. | Evidence supports intent and excludes coverage as a matter of law. | Third assignment sustained; genuine issue of material fact exists; remand on this issue. |
| Is W.S.’s adjudication binding on Sanders (non-party) via collateral estoppel? | Collateral estoppel should preclude Sanders from relitigating. | Collateral estoppel does not apply to Sanders as non-party and due to differing standards. | Fourth assignment sustained; collateral estoppel not applicable. |
| Did the trial court properly grant Nationwide summary judgment on the policy exclusion issue given mental state evidence? | Insurer must prove actual injury was intended; mental state creates fact questions. | Evidence supports exclusion as a matter of law. | Fifth assignment sustained in part; court notes need for factual determination on intent; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Safeco Ins. Co. v. White, 122 Ohio St.3d 562 (2009) (insurer may deny coverage for intentional acts but policy exclusions may be limited by related negligent acts)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 128 Ohio St.3d 186 (2010) (clarifies interpretation of intentional-act exclusions in homeowners policies)
- State v. Kollstedt, 71 Ohio St.3d 624 (1995) (insanity standard for intent in insurance context differs from criminal standard)
- Physicians Ins. Co. of Ohio v. Swanson, 58 Ohio St.3d 189 (1991) (to avoid coverage, the injury itself must be shown as intended or expected by insured)
- Turner, 29 Ohio App.3d 73 (1989) (trial court determines whether insured lacked mental capacity to form intent; issue for fact-finder)