Written By Attorney Rebecca K. Hockenberry
This article is an interpretation of current law and is offered for informational purposes only. This material is not legal advice and should not be construed or used as a substitute for the advice of an attorney.
On August 4, 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court held that an insurance policy excluding coverage for "intentional acts" did not preclude coverage for negligent actions of other insureds under the same policy arising from the same events. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. V. White, Slip Op. No. 2009-Ohio-3718. In July 2003, Benjamin White, a minor, attacked and repeatedly stabbed Casey Hilmer, a minor. Benjamin pleaded guilty to attempted murder and felonious assault. The Hilmers filed a civil action against Benjamin for battery and against his parents (the "Whites") for negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. At the time of the attack, the Whites had two insurance policies with Safeco Insurance Company: a homeowner's policy and an umbrella policy. Safeco sought a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify the Whites in relation to claims arising out of Benjamin's intentional act.
The homeowner's policy issued by Safeco expressly identified Lance and Diane White as insureds and included their son, Benjamin, as an insured by definition. Similar to most homeowner's policies, the policy specifically excluded coverage for bodily injury that "is expected or intended by an insured or which is the foreseeable result of an act or omission intended by an insured" or "arising out of any illegal act committed by or at the direction of an insured." Id. The Safeco umbrella policy named Lance White as an insured and included both Diane and Benjamin as insureds by definition. The umbrella policy expressly excluded coverage for "[a]ny injury caused by a violation of a penal law or ordinance committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any insured" or "[a]ny act or damage which is expected or intended by any insured." Slip Op. ¶ 16. Both policies contained a severability clause that stated, "this insurance applies separately to each insured." Id.
The first issue addressed by the Court was whether Casey's injuries resulted from an "occurrence" for purposes of coverage under the Safeco policies for Lance and Diane White. The Court held "that when a liability insurance policy defines an 'occurrence' as an 'accident,' a negligent act committed by an insured that is predicated on the commission of an intentional tort by another person, e.g., negligent hiring or negligent supervision, qualifies as an 'occurrence.'" Slip Op. ¶ 27. The Court cited its 2000 holding in Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388, 738 N.E.2d 1243 (2000) where it stated that liability coverage hinges on whether the act is intentional from the perspective of the person seeking coverage and that the intentions of the offender are not material in determining whether the allegedly negligent party has coverage. Because Lance and Diane White did not intentionally injure Casey Hilmer, from their perspective, the injury was accidental and constituted a covered "occurrence" under the two Safeco policies.
The Court next addressed whether any policy exclusions precluded coverage. Regarding the negligence claims against the Whites, the Court held "that insurance-policy exclusions that preclude coverage for injuries expected or intended by an insured, or injuries arising out of or cause by an insured's intentional or illegal acts, do not preclude coverage for the negligent actions of other insureds under the same policy that are predicated on the commission of those intentional or illegal acts, e.g., negligent hiring or negligent supervision." Slip Op. ¶ 42. To succeed on a claim of negligence, the Hilmers had to prove a separate injury that did not arise from the intentional act. The Hilmers needed to show that the Whites breached their duty to supervise their son, Benjamin, and to not entrust him with a dangerous instrument, and that these breaches caused harm to the Hilmers. The Court stressed that the trial court jury found that the Whites were negligent and were held separately liable for actions that were neither intentional nor illegal. Accordingly, the policy exclusions for "intentional acts" did not apply.
