Westfield Insurance v. Hunter
128 Ohio St. 3d 540
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Hunters own Ohio home insured by Westfield; policy excludes claims arising out of premises owned by an insured that are not an insured location.
- Hunters also own an Indiana farm insured by Grinnell Mutual, not an insured location under Westfield's policy.
- Injury: Terrell Whicker (minor) injured on the Indiana farm while riding an ATV with Ashley; suit later brought against Ashley and Hunters for negligent supervision/entrustment theories, among others.
- Westfield filed a declaratory judgment action seeking defense/indemnity; Grinnell counterclaimed for coverage pro rata.
- Trial court granted Westfield summary judgment; court of appeals affirmed; dispute centered on whether the 'other premises' exclusion excludes the Whickers' claims.
- Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate ruling and remanded to determine whether the Whickers’ theory of liability is rooted in ownership of the property or in premises-related conditions, applying a narrow reading of the exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of 'arising out of' exclusion | Whickers: exclusion broad enough to bar premises-based liability arising from ownership. | Westfield: exclusion should preclude coverage for claims tied to other owned premises. | Narrow interpretation; exclusion does not automatically bar premises-based claims. |
| Should Guillermin vs Turner interpretation govern | Guillermin controls; injury must arise from dangerous condition on premises. | Turner controls; causal connection suffices to exclude. | Guillermin preferred for narrow, premises-related claims; Turner rejected as to this exclusion. |
| Remand to determine theory of liability | Whickers' claims stem from Hunters' ownership of the property; exclusion applies. | If underlying theory is negligent supervision unrelated to property condition, exclusion may not apply. | Remand required to ascertain whether claims arise from ownership of the property or from the premises' condition; outcome depends on factual theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. States Ins. Co. v. Guillermin, 108 Ohio App.3d 547 (Ohio App.3d 1996) (injury arises out of premises only if dangerous condition on premises; preferred approach)
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Turner, 29 Ohio App.3d 73 (Ohio App.3d 1986) (arising out of generally 'flowing from' or 'having its origin in' the insured property)
- Eyler v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 824 S.W.2d 855 (Ky. 1992) (causal connection required between premises and injury; suggests direct relation needed)
- Lititz Mut. Ins. Co. v. Branch, 561 S.W.2d 371 (Mo.App.Ct. 1977) (premises-based vs. personal conduct liability; dog bite not arising out of premises)
- Callahan v. Quincy Mut. Fire Co., 50 Mass.App.Ct. 260 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000) (insurer for different premises not liable where injury not tied to premises condition)