Court of Appeals - Intentional Act - Homeowner Policy - Severability Clause

Supervising and Controlling Other Insureds

Severability Clause Creates Coverage Ambiguity for Negligent Supervision and Control by "other" insureds.

Insured's son stabbed a teen girl while she was jogging. His parents were sued for negligent supervision and tendered coverage to their homeowner’s policy. The policy excluded coverage for injuries caused by the intentional conduct of an insured. The policy also contained a severability of insurance clause, which stated that “this insurance applies separately to each insured.” The trial court concluded that the severability clause rendered the exclusion ambiguous.

The court of appeals agreed. In so finding, the appellate court recognized that Ohio public policy did not preclude coverage for the negligent claims. The court then held that the injury was an occurrence under the policy. While occurrence was defined as an accident, the conduct of the parents was alleged to have been negligent, even though the actual injurious conduct was intentional.

The court concluded that the intentional act exclusion was rendered ambiguous by the severability of insurance clause. “When reading the severability condition in conjunction with the exclusions in the Safeco policies, we hold that the exclusions are ambiguous. Construing that ambiguity in favor of the insureds, in light of the policyholder expectation recognized in Doe, we hold that the exclusions for intentional conduct do not apply to insureds who have been merely negligent, when the policies contain language indicating that coverage applies ‘separately to each insured.’”

Safeco Ins. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. (Dinkelacker) Appeal from the court of common pleas for Hamilton County. 2007-Ohio-7068 (12/28/07)

Read the Case: Safeco Ins. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co.