469_C349

---

DISPUTE WHETHER HARM WAS INTENDED BY PRANK

---

Homeowners

Intentional act

On November 18, 2005, a group of teenaged boys thought of a prank. They decided to place a Styrofoam deer target along a two-lane county road in a place where drivers would not be able to see it until they were 15 to 30 yards away. The boys thought it would be fun to surprise motorists and to watch their reactions.

Robert Roby was driving along the road when he saw the fake deer. He swerved to avoid it and lost control of his vehicle, which eventually overturned. Roby and his passenger, Dustin Zachariah, were seriously injured in the accident. They sued the boys, their parents, and their homeowners insurance companies.

The insurance companies, Allstate Insurance Company, American Southern Insurance Company, Erie Insurance Exchange, and Grange Mutual Casualty Company filed declaratory judgment actions asking the court to find that they owed no duty to defend or indemnify their insureds because of their policies' "intentional act" exclusions. The actions were eventually consolidated. The trial court found in favor of the insurance companies, but the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Ohio then agreed to hear the case.

The key question to be answered by the Supreme Court was whether intent to harm was to be inferred under the circumstances of the case (the inferred intent doctrine). As a preliminary matter, the court noted that all of the policies contained language excluding coverage for intentional acts. The Allstate, Erie, and Grange policies excluded from coverage harm that was expected or intended by the insured. The American Southern policy language was broader and declared that American Southern was not liable for harm resulting from any intentional act done by the insured.

The insurers argued that whether intent should be inferred was a matter of law, specifically whether the boys could have been "substantially certain" that their actions could have caused harm. The boys and their parents argued that the boys' intent should be resolved as an issue of fact to be decided by a jury. The court clarified the doctrine of inferred intent and stated that it applied only in cases in which the intentional act and the harm caused were "intrinsically tied so that the act has necessarily resulted in the harm."

The court then held that, when determining when intent to harm should be inferred as a matter of law, the "substantially certain" test should not be applied; rather, the court should examine whether the act necessarily resulted in the harm. Applying the standard to the case, the court concluded: "[w]hile the boys' act was ill-conceived and irresponsible and resulted in serious injuries, the action and the harm [were] not intrinsically tied…"Thus the doctrine of inferred intent did not apply to the circumstances of the case.

The court concluded that the court of appeals was correct in finding that the trial court erred in finding in favor of Allstate, Erie, and Grange. With regard to American Southern, because of its broader policy language, the court concluded that the trial court was correct to find no coverage.

The appeals court's decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded for further findings consistent with the Supreme Court decision.

Allstate Insurance Company vs. Campbell-No. 2009-2358-Supreme Court of Ohio-December 30, 2010-2010 WL 5538723