Ward v. United Foundries, Inc.
951 N.E.2d 770
Ohio2011Background
- Gulf issued a CGL policy to United with a stop-gap employer’s liability endorsement deleting certain exclusions for ‘employer’s liability hazards.’
- The endorsement excludes bodily injury caused or aggravated by the insured, and injuries from an act determined to be committed with the belief that injury is substantially certain to occur.
- Ward filed an underlying suit alleging employer intentional tort and damages; United sought defense and indemnity under Gulf’s policy.
- The trial court held Gulf had a duty to defend if the stop-gap exclusion allowed coverage; the court of appeals reversed.
- Ohio appellate courts conflicted on whether the exclusion required a final fact-finder determination before denial of defense.
- The Ohio Supreme Court resolved the conflict, holding the exclusion does not require a final determination to deny defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the stop-gap exclusion require a final determination to deny defense? | Ward/United argued a judge/jury determination is needed before denial. | Gulf argued no such determination is required by the language. | No final determination is required; exclusion precludes defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn Traffic Co. v. AIU Ins. Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 227 (2003) (emphasizes contract interpretation and defense/indemnity distinction)
- Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 2007-Ohio-1905 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (addressed ambiguity in an exclusion similar to stop-gap language)
- Ohio Government Risk Management Plan v. Harrison, 115 Ohio St.3d 241 (2007) (duty to defend is broader than duty to indemnify; based on allegations)
- Pilkington N. Am., Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Co., 112 Ohio St.3d 482 (2011) (policy interpretation and endorsement reading within contract context)