Cuervo v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2404,94-2404 |
| Citation | 76 Ohio St.3d 41,665 N.E.2d 1121 |
| Parties | CUERVO et al., Appellees, v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, Charles E. Brant and Terri B. Gregori, Columbus, for appellees.
Lane, Alton & Horst and Karen Krisher Rosenberg, Columbus, for appellant.
Cincinnati Insurance Company has abandoned its argument below that the Cuervos could only use the supplemental petition procedures established by R.C. 3929.06 to collect the amounts awarded to them from Cincinnati, the Snells' insurer. Without expressing any opinion concerning the merits of that argument, and without condoning the procedure used by the Cuervos in filing a new, separate action, rather than filing a supplemental petition in the action brought against the insureds, we deem any error which may have occurred arising out of this procedural choice to have been waived.
In Gearing v. Nationwide Ins. Co. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 34, 665 N.E.2d 1115, decided this date, we held that incidents of intentional acts of sexual molestation of a minor do not constitute "occurrences" for purposes of determining insurance coverage; that intent to harm inconsistent with an insurable incident is properly inferred as a matter of law from deliberate acts of sexual molestation of a minor; and that the public policy of the state of Ohio, which prohibits the issuance of insurance to indemnify damages flowing from intentional torts, precludes issuance of insurance to provide liability coverage for injuries resulting from intentional acts of sexual molestation of a minor.
Gearing's holdings require that we reverse the court of appeals which remanded the instant cause for determination of Peter Snell's actual intent. Pursuant to Gearing, it makes no difference whether Peter lacked a subjective intent to harm the Cuervo children Therefore, the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati as to its alleged obligation to pay the judgment awarded against Peter Snell.
Similarly, the damages for which the Cuervos seek compensation flow from Peter's intentional acts of sexual molestation of a minor. Thus, and on this record, the obligation of Cincinnati to pay the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. White
...the intentional act. Id. at syllabus. In coming to that conclusion, we partially overruled a prior decision, Cuervo v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 41, 665 N.E.2d 1121, that held that insurance coverage for a negligent-supervision claim is barred by the public policy against pe......
-
Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hagan
...(intent was inferred for perpetrator who was 13 to 16 years old at the time of the abuse); Cuervo v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 76 Ohio St.3d 41, 665 N.E.2d 1121 (1996) (inferred-intent standard applied to 16-year-old); see also Swentkowski v. Dawson, 881 P.2d 437 (Colo.Ct.App.1994) (relying......
-
Gnfh, Inc. v. W. Am. Ins. Co.
...provide liability coverage for injuries resulting from intentional acts of sexual molestation of a minor." Cuervo v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 41, 43, 665 N.E.2d 1121. {¶ 40} In the present case, the trial court relied on Gearing's theory of "inferred intent" to find that th......
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. GHW
...S.E.2d 483, 493 (2004) (holding that inferred intent rule applies regardless of the age of the actor); Cuervo v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 76 Ohio St.3d 41, 665 N.E.2d 1121 (1996), overruled on other grounds by Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388, 738 N.E.2d 1243 (2000) (16 year old's intent infer......