Several years ago, the Ohio general assembly passed legislation that limited the circumstances within which an employee could sue his employer for injuries outside of the workers’ compensation system. Under this legislation, the employee was required to prove that the employer acted with deliberate intent to cause injury. There was a limited exception to the deliberate intent requirement in circumstances where the employer removed an equipment safety guard in which case the employer’s intent could be presumed. Left unanswered by the legislation was the question of whether an employer’s liability insurance provided coverage for these tort claims when the employer’s intent was presumed. The Ohio Supreme Court has now answered that question by concluding that such claims are excluded. Hoyle v. DTJ Enterprises, Inc., ____ Ohio St. 3d ____, 2015-Ohio-843.
In Hoyle, an employee of DTJ Enterprises (“DTJ”) was injured when he fell from a ladder-jack scaffold. Mr. Hoyle asserted he was injured because his employer failed to have bolts or pins securing the ladder-jacks to the ladder. He claimed that his supervisor kept the bolts and pins in his office and told the employees they were not needed because they took too much time to use.
Hoyle sued his employer for an employer intentional tort. Revised Code § 2745.01(C) creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer intended to injure its employee if it deliberately removed an equipment safety guard. Mr. Hoyle contended that the failure to use the bolts or pins to secure the ladder-jacks constituted the deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard which gave rise to the presumption that his employer intended to injure him.
DTJ had purchased a commercial general liability policy from Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”). The policy contained an employer liability endorsement which obligated Cincinnati to provide coverage for “those sums that an insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury sustained by your employee in the workplace and caused by an intentional tort to which this insurance applies.” The policy defined an intentional tort as “an act which is substantially certain to cause bodily injury.” The endorsement, however, excluded from coverage claims for “liability for acts committed by or at the direction of an insured with the deliberate intent to injure.”
Cincinnati provided a defense to DTJ and intervened in the tort action to obtain a declaration that it did not have a duty to indemnify its policyholder. Cincinnati contended that its policy precluded coverage for acts committed with a deliberate intent to injure and, regardless of whether Mr. Hoyle established his intentional tort claim through direct evidence or a rebuttable presumption arising from the removal of a safety guard, his claim triggered application of the exclusion. The trial court agreed and granted judgment in favor of Cincinnati. A divided appellate court reversed concluding that an employee may prevail in an employer intentional tort claim under Revised Code 2745.01(C) without proving deliberate intent and, as such, the exclusion for deliberate intent was not triggered. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and concluded that, in order to succeed in an employer intentional tort claim, the employee had the burden of establishing that the employer acted with intent to injure, either with direct evidence or through the statutory presumption of intent.
Applying its analysis to the Cincinnati policy, the court concluded that DTJ could not be legally obligated to pay damages for an employer intentional tort except upon a finding that it acted with intent to injure its employee. The court determined that, whether Hoyle proved the intent with direct evidence or with an unrebutted presumption, the intent to injure was an essential element of his claim. Because liability under the Cincinnati policy was excluded for acts committed with the deliberate intent to injure, the court concluded that there was no set of facts under which DTJ could be legally liable that falls within the policy’s coverage.
This decision makes clear that, in order to recover for an employer intentional tort, an employer must be found to have acted with deliberate intent. Properly worded policy language excluding coverage for claims arising out of an employer’s intent to injure will be given force and effect by Ohio courts. If you have any questions regarding this decision, or regarding insurance coverage in general, please contact one of Reminger’s Insurance Coverage/Bad Faith Practice Groups members.
This has been prepared for informational purposes only. It does not contain legal advice or legal opinion and should not be relied upon for individual situations. Nothing herein creates an attorney-client relationship between the Reader and Reminger. The information in this document is subject to change and the Reader should not rely on the statements in this document without first consulting legal counsel.
THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT
