Understanding Employer Intentional Torts in Ohio Workers' Compensation Law

FBT Gibbons, a well-regarded national law firm, serves a diverse clientele, including mid-sized businesses and large multinational corporations. The firm leverages its extensive expertise in sectors such as energy, finance, life sciences, and manufacturing to craft strategies that align with clients' business objectives. Their innovative approach and recognition as one of North America's most forward-thinking firms by The Financial Times underscore their commitment to integrating technology and advancing legal practices, particularly in the area of artificial intelligence.

In a recent legal development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reaffirmed existing Ohio law on employer intentional torts and related intentional-injury exclusions within employer liability insurance policies. This decision in the case of Encore Industries, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America reinforced that federal courts would continue to honor the explicit wording found in these insurance policies regarding intentional-injury exclusions.

Under Ohio's workers’ compensation framework, the state generally provides that workers' compensation benefits are the sole remedy for employees injured at work. Nevertheless, a longstanding exception allowed employees to file lawsuits against employers for intentional torts. Notably, the Ohio Supreme Court, in previous rulings such as Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc., permitted employees to seek tort claims when employers had intentionally caused harm. Another notable case, Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., delineated two types of employer intentional torts: those with direct intent to cause injury and those with knowledge that harm would likely occur.

However, changes came into effect in 2005 when Ohio R.C. 2745.01 was enacted, effectively replacing the common-law basis for these tort claims. This statute mandates that an employee pursuing an intentional-tort claim must prove that the employer acted with direct intent to harm. It maintains alignment with the previous standards, stipulating liability when harm is substantially certain to occur, defined as when an employer has a deliberate intent to cause an injury.

This statutory framework operates alongside Ohio’s workers' compensation preemption statute, Ohio R.C. 4123.74, clarified by the Ohio Supreme Court. An employer is not deemed liable for an intentional tort without clear intent to harm the employee, as demonstrated in Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials, N.A.

In the Encore Industries case, an employee's accidental death led to litigation under Ohio R.C. 2745.01, with claims that safety mechanisms had been intentionally compromised. After settling with the employee's estate, Encore sought indemnity from its insurers. The insurers rejected the claim, citing policy exclusions for bodily injury intended by the insured, a position upheld by the district court and subsequently by the Sixth Circuit on appeal.

The Sixth Circuit's endorsement emphasizes a consistent application of Ohio R.C. 2745.01, upholding insurers' positions when employer intentional-tort claims necessitate explicit intent. This decision exemplifies the legal clarity provided to insurers regarding coverage exclusions tied to intentional acts by employers.