Tag Archives: exclusion

On December 30, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 2010-Ohio-6312.  This decision addressed application of the doctrine of inferred intent to cases other than sexual molestation or homicide, and it also revised the analytical framework for finding inferred intent.  The Court held that, “[a]s applied to an insurance policy’s intentional-act exclusion, the doctrine of inferred intent applies only in cases in which the insured’s intentional act and the harm caused are intrinsically tied so that the act has necessarily resulted in the harm.”  Because Campbell appears to be a step back from prior “substantial certainty” inferred intent decisions, it may cause some insurance companies to revisit the language of their intentional acts exclusions in the very near future.

On August 4, 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court decided the case of Safeco. Inc. Co. of Am. v. White, 2009-Ohio-3718. The First District Court of Appeals had certified conflicts with both the Fifth and Third District Courts of Appeals concerning the coverage available to insureds sued for negligence relating to intentional conduct of other insureds. The Supreme Court also accepted the insurance company's discretionary appeal on the same issues, consolidating the cases. The Supreme Court addressed two questions: (1) "when an insurance policy defines an 'occurrence' as an accident' that results in bodily injury, does an 'occurrence' include injuries that result from an intentional act when the insured[s] seeking coverage are claimed to have been negligent in relation to that intentional act?" and (2) "when an insurance policy excludes [coverage for intentional acts - i.e., for injuries expected or intended by an insured, for injuries arising out of criminal conduct] do the exclusions become ambiguous when read in conjunction with a 'Severability of Insurance' condition, in light of the announced expectation by policyholders that their negligence will be covered?"