OHIO SUPREME COURT

Fed. Ins. Co. v. Executive Coach Luxury Travel, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6300.

Interpretation of "Ominbus Clause" in commercial policy of insurance.

Insurance — Insureds — Bus service contracted by college is a “hired” bus under the college’s insurance policy, and the driver employed by the bus
company is an “insured” under that same policy.

WHAT THE COURT SAID:

The omnibus clause appears straightforward; none of the words in it are unusual or uncommon, but only "auto" is defined in the policy.

All the involved parties have spent much time and effort advocating for their definition of the words "hire" and "permission."

On its face, it is clear to us that the omnibus clause applies to the case before us; Bluffton [College] hired the bus from Executive and granted permission to Niemeyer to drive the bus. Whether the insurance company intended the clause to apply is immaterial because the language of the policy supports a conclusion that Niemeyer is an insured.

We construe insurance policies liberally in favor of the insured. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of Ohio v. Hrenko (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 120, 122, 647 N.E.2d 1358, citing Yeagar v. Pacific Mut. Life. Ins. Co. (1956), 166 Ohio St. 71, 1 O.O.2d 204, 139 N.E.2d 48, paragraph one of the syllabus.

Read the Case.

OHIO SUPREME COURT

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CAMPBELL
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-6312

INTENTIONAL ACT EXCLUSION DISCUSSED

Teens place deer decoy in roadway at night. They ensure that decoy becomes visible only 10-15 seconds before potential impact. Insurer claims that the teens' conduct intentionally caused harm to vehicle occupants; and coverage should be excluded under the "intended/expected" policy exclusion. (See original news story here.)

Insurance policies — Inferred-intent analysis applied to intentional-act exclusions — Inferred intent is not limited to sexual molestation and homicide — Inferred intent applies only when the insured’s intentional act and the harm caused are intrinsically tied so that the act has necessarily resulted in the harm.

SYLLABUS OF THE COURT
1. As applied to an insurance policy’s intentional-act exclusion, the doctrine of inferred intent is not limited to cases of sexual molestation or homicide.

2. As 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.

Read the Case.