City of Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 9 Ohio St. 3d 177 (1984)is the leading Ohio Supreme Court decision that addresses the scope of the duty to defend. It adopts the “expanded scope of the allegations” test, and holds that if even one claim in a complaint is arguably or potentially within the scope of policy coverage, then the insurer must defend the entire action until such time as no potentially-covered claims remain.
Zoppo v. Homestead Ins. Co., 71 Ohio St. 3d 552 (1994)is the leading Ohio Supreme Court decision that addresses the standard used to determine whether an insurer is acting in bad faith. It holds that there must be “reasonable justification” to support an insurer’s actions, and that something more than mere negligence is required to establish bad faith.
Harasyn v. Normandy Metals, Inc., 49 Ohio St. 3d 173 (1990)is the leading Ohio Supreme Court decision that addresses whether and when, as a matter of public policy, a policyholder’s conduct is too intentional to be insurable. In Harasyn, the Ohio Supreme Court held that it is not contrary to public policy for insurance to cover torts even when the actor has knowledge that the injury was “substantially certain” to occur.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 128 Ohio St.3d 186 (2010)is the leading Ohio Supreme Court decision that addresses the inferred intent doctrine. In Campbell, several teenage boys placed a target deer in the road where drivers would not see it and would need to take evasive action. Unfortunately, one vehicle encountering the target lost control, went off the road, and crashed injuring the driver and passenger. The boys testified that they did not intend to injure anyone. But the insurers argued that the boys’ intent could be inferred from their actions because the injuries were “substantially certain to result from [the boys’] actions.” The Court held that “while the boys’ act was ill-conceived and irresponsible and resulted in serious injuries, the action and harm are not intrinsically tied the way they are in murder and sexual molestation.”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St. 3d 512 (2002)is the leading Ohio Supreme Court decision that addresses the allocation of defense costs and indemnity payments among all triggered policies for long-tail claims where the injury sustained by the plaintiff occurs gradually and continually across multiple policy periods. The Court adopted the policyholder-friendly “all sums” allocation method, which allows the policyholder to pick and choose any insurer that was on the risk for any part of period when the lo0ss was occurring to defend and indemnify it.
Safeco Ins. Co. v. White, 122 Ohio St. 3d 562 (2009)is the leading Ohio Supreme Court decision that addresses the question of whether coverage for innocent co-insureds in third-party liability cases is barred by the intentional act of another insured under the policy. The Court held that whether bodily injury or property damage was expected or intended must be viewed from the standpoint of each person claiming the status of an insured.
Andersen v. Highland House Co., 93 Ohio St. 3d 547 (2001)is the leading Ohio Supreme Court decision that addresses the question of what constitutes a “pollutant” within the meaning of a pollution exclusion. The Court held that in order to be a “pollutant,” the release or discharge must “resemble traditional forms of environmental contamination” or constitute “gradual environmental degradation.”
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc., 133 Ohio St. 3d 476 (2012)is the leading Ohio Supreme Court decision that addresses the meaning of the “business risk” exclusions in commercial general liability policies. In general, the Court agreed that general liability policies cover “defective workmanship that causes an accident” (i.e., resulting loss to other persons or property) but not “an accident of defective workmanship” (which requires the defective work to be torn out and replaced).
Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ironics, Inc., 168 Ohio St. 3d 467 (2022)is the leading Ohio Supreme Court decision that addresses the question of whether the “business risk” exclusions bar coverage where the insured’s defective product is incorporated into the product manufactured by another, which must then be scrapped because of the incorporation of the insured’s defective product. The Court held that where the insured’s product was defective because it utilized defective raw materials provided by a vendor (rather than being defective because of the insured’s own craftsmanship), the loss was accidental and therefore constituted an ”occurrence.” It also held that the other business risk exclusions for damage to “your product” and “your work” and the “impaired property” exclusion did not apply.
Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St. 3d 186 (2002)is the leading Ohio Supreme Court decision that addresses the question of whether prejudice must be shown before breach of a condition will bar coverage. In Ferrando, the policyholder settled with and released the tortfeasor before submitting an underinsured motorist claim to his own auto insurer. The insurer argued that the policyholder had impaired its right of subrogation against the tortfeasor in breach of the policy’s express requirement to preserve those rights. The Court held that the breach of a prompt notice or subrogation provision bars a UM/UIM claim under a policy must engage in a two-step inquiry. First, the court must determine whether the subrogation rights were impaired. The second step is to inquire whether the insurer was prejudiced. A breach of the subrogation provision gives rise to a presumption of prejudice to the insurer, which the insured bears the burden of presenting evidence to rebut.
