Please click the heading "Ohio Insurance" above to refresh this page and see latest posts.
My photo
Cleveland, Ohio, United States
Currently an attorney and insurance industry professional. Mr. Stoll is a commercial lawyer, arbitrator and mediator who also serves as insurance coverage counsel and advisor to numerous businesses throughout the country. He is also a licensed insurance agent/broker.

May 13, 2010

OHIO SUPREME COURT


EMPLOYMENT INTENTIONAL TORT STATUTE CONSTITUTIONALITY - UPHELD
R.C. 2745.01 remains valid.

Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co.,Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1027

Torts — Employer intentional torts — R.C. 2745.01 — R.C. 2745.01 does not violate Section 34 or 35, Article II, Ohio Constitution.
_________________
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT

R.C. 2745.01 does not violate Section 34 or 35, Article II of the Ohio
Constitution. (Johnson v. BP Chems., Inc. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 298, 707
N.E.2d 1107, limited.)

What The Court Held:

As we anticipated in our post of October, 4, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the current employment intentional tort statute is constitutional. In the case of Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products, the contitutionality of the statute was found on the following basis:

[W]e hold that R.C. 2745.01 violates neither the plain language nor the plain meaning of Sections 34 or 35, Article II of the Ohio Constitution.

We find the construction of Sections 34 and 35 set forth in Johnson v. BP Chems., Inc. (1999),85 Ohio St.3d 298, 707 N.E.2d 1107, to be inconsistent with other decisions of this court, including decisions subsequent to Johnson.

Moreover, the provisions of the statute we review herein are significantly different from those of the statute reviewed in Johnson. Therefore while we do not specifically overrule the decision in that case, we limit its reach to apply only to the statutory provisions that were then at issue.

Because the judgment of the court of appeals in the case sub judice was based on Johnson’s flawed interpretations of Sections 34 and 35, we must reverse.

In Stetter, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2010-Ohio-1029, ___ N.E.2d ____, also decided this day, we uphold the constitutionality of R.C. 2745.01 in the face of challenges on other grounds. The net result of these two decisions is to confirm the constitutional validity of R.C. 2745.01.

No comments: