Neal-pettit v. Lahman

• Citation: 125 Ohio St.3d 327,2010 Ohio 1829,928 N.E.2d 421
• Decision Date: 04 May 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2009-0325.,2009-0325.
• Parties: NEAL-PETTIT, Appellee,v.LAHMAN et al.; Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio

125 Ohio St.3d 327

928 N.E.2d 421

2010 Ohio 1829

NEAL-PETTIT, Appellee,v.LAHMAN et al.; Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.

No. 2009-0325.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.

Decided May 4, 2010.

Syllabus of the Court

Attorney fees are distinct from punitive damages, and public policy does not prevent an insurance company from covering attorney fees on behalf of an insured when they are awarded solely as a result of an award for punitive damages.

Bashein & Bashein Co., L.P.A., and W. Craig Bashein; and Paul W. Flowers Co., L.P.A., and Paul W. Flowers, Cleveland, for appellee.

Ritzler, Coughlin & Swansinger, Ltd., and Thomas M. Coughlin Jr., Cleveland, for appellant.

Robert P. Rutter, Cleveland, urging affirmance for amicus curiae World Harvest Church.

Gallagher, Gams, Pryor, Tallan & Littrell, L.L.P., and James R. Gallagher, Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys.

LANZINGER, J.

{¶ 1} We accepted this discretionary appeal to determine whether an insurer must pay an attorney-fee award on behalf of its insured under her insurance policy and whether payment of attorney fees awarded solely as a result of punitive damages violates the public policy of Ohio. After reviewing the policy, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the policy does cover attorney-fee awards and that public policy does not prevent such coverage.

Facts

{¶ 2} Appellee, Kimberly Neal-Pettit, filed suit against Linda Lahman for compensatory and punitive damages due to personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident on March 27, 2003. As alleged in the complaint, when Lahman struck Neal-Pettit's vehicle, she was intoxicated and fleeing the scene of an earlier collision. The case was heard by a jury, which returned a verdict against Lahman for compensatory damages totaling $113,800 and punitive damages totaling $75,000. In addition, the jury awarded attorney fees to Neal-Pettit based on a finding that Lahman had acted with malice. The trial court set the amount of attorney fees at $46,825 and also awarded Neal-Pettit $10,084.96 in expenses.

{¶ 3} Lahman maintained automobile insurance through appellant, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”). Allstate paid Neal-Pettit the amounts awarded as compensatory damages, interest, and expenses, but denied payment of the punitive damages and attorney fees.

{¶ 4} Neal-Pettit filed a supplemental complaint against Allstate for payment of the attorney fees. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Neal-Pettit on the issue. Allstate appealed, arguing that it had not contracted to pay attorney fees and that an attorney-fee award is an element of punitive damages, which public policy prevents an insurer from covering. The Eighth District affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that attorney fees are “conceptually distinct” from punitive damages and that attorney fees are not expressly excluded from coverage by the language of the policy. Neal-Pettit v. Lahman, 8th Dist. No. 91551, 2008-Ohio-6653, 2008 WL 5259726, ¶ 5.

{¶ 5} We accepted jurisdiction over Allstate's appeal on three issues: (1) whether it is against public policy for an insurer to pay an attorney-fee award made in conjunction with a punitive-damages award, (2) whether an attorney-fee award can be characterized as “[damages] because of bodily injury,” as required for coverage under Allstate's policy, and (3) whether Allstate's policy term excluding coverage of “punitive or exemplary damages, fines or penalties” excludes coverage of attorney fees that are awarded in conjunction with a punitive-damages award.

{¶ 6} After examining Allstate's policy, we affirm the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals.

Legal Analysis

Insurance Policy-Coverage Provision

{¶ 7} An insurer's obligations to its insured are governed by the coverage stated in the policy. Gearing v. Nationwide Ins. Co. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 34, 36, 665 N.E.2d 1115. Allstate argues that it is clear from the insurance policy's general statement of coverage that it did not agree to cover awards of attorney fees.

{¶ 8} It is true that the policy does not discuss attorney fees within the insuring clause. The policy's general statement of coverage explains:

{¶ 9} “If a premium is shown on the Policy Declarations for Bodily Injury Liability Coverage and Property Damage Liability Coverage, Allstate will pay damages which an insured person is legally obligated to pay because of:

{¶ 10} “1. bodily injury sustained by any person, and

{¶ 11} “2. damage to, or destruction of, property.”

{¶ 12} “Bodily injury” is defined by the policy as “physical harm to the body, sickness, disease, or death.” (Boldface sic, indicating defined terms.)

{¶ 13} The question is whether the attorney fees awarded are damages that Lahman is legally obligated to pay because of the bodily injury sustained by Neal-Pettit. The policy does not define the word “damages.” Allstate argues that the award is not covered under the policy, because attorney fees are not damages themselves, but are derivative of punitive damages and thus are not awarded as a result of bodily injury.

{¶ 14} Allstate argues that the attorney-fee award is an element of the punitive-damages award because both are made in cases of malicious conduct. The dissent also points out that an attorney-fee award is “directly tied to and dependent upon an award of punitive damages.” Dissenting opinion at ¶ 26. However, the fact that the awards have similar bases is irrelevant. We have recognized that attorney-fee awards and punitive-damages awards are distinct: “In an action to recover damages for a tort which involves the ingredients of fraud, malice, or insult, a jury may go beyond the rule of mere compensation to the party aggrieved, and award exemplary or punitive damages * * *. In such a case, the jury may, in their estimate of compensatory damages, take into consideration and include reasonable fees of counsel employed by the plaintiff in the prosecution of his action.” (Emphasis sic.) Roberts v. Mason (1859), 10 Ohio St. 277, 1859 WL 78, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. See also Smith v. Pittsburg, Ft. Wayne & Chicago Ry. Co. (1872), 23 Ohio St. 10, 18, 1872 WL 50 (“The doctrine * * * announced [in Roberts] is that in a case where punitive as well as compensatory damages may be awarded, the jury * * * should regard counsel fees as compensation and not as punishment”); Zappitelli v. Miller, 114 Ohio St.3d 102, 2007-Ohio-3251, 868 N.E.2d 968, ¶ 6 (when an award of attorney fees is made in addition to a punitive-damages award, it is awarded as an element of compensatory damages).

{¶ 15} Allstate relies on Digital & Analog Design Corp. v. N. Supply Co. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 657, 590 N.E.2d 737, a case in which we stated that requiring a party to pay the other party's attorney fees is a punitive, and thus equitable, remedy. But Digital 's discussion of attorney fees was explicitly characterized as dicta in Zoppo v. Homestead Ins. Co. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 552, 557, 644 N.E.2d 397. In Zoppo, the court “reject[ed] the reasoning espoused in Digital which treats the right to trial by jury in cases assessing attorney fees the same as the right in cases of punitive damages.” Id.

{¶ 16} Cases such as Roberts, Zappitelli, and Zoppo explain that although an award of attorney fees may stem from an award of punitive damages, the attorney-fee award itself is not an element of the punitive-damages award.

{¶ 17} Allstate next argues that an attorney-fee award is not covered under its policy, because attorney fees are not “[damages] because of bodily injury,” as required by the policy, but rather are awarded as a result of punitive damages. Although, in this case, attorney fees were awarded as a result of an award of punitive damages, they also stem from the underlying bodily injury. The language of the policy does not limit coverage to damages solely because of bodily injury. In addition, insofar as the parties have offered their own separate interpretations of the language of the policy, both of them plausible, we must resolve any uncertainty in favor of the insured. Buckeye Union Ins. Co. v. Price (1974), 39 Ohio St.2d 95, 68 O.O.2d 56, 313 N.E.2d 844, syllabus.

{¶ 18} Attorney fees may therefore fall under the insurance policy's general coverage of “damages which an insured person is legally obligated to pay” because of “bodily injury.” The next question is whether they have been specifically excluded.

Insurance Policy-Exclusions

{¶ 19} Allstate argues that the policy issued to Lahman excludes coverage of attorney-fee awards. An insurer who claims that a policy exclusion prohibits insurance coverage must show that the exclusion specifically applies. Continental Ins. Co. v. Louis Marx & Co., Inc. (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 399, 401, 18 O.O.3d 539, 415 N.E.2d 315. Exclusions of coverage must be clear and unambiguous to be enforceable. Moorman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 20, 4 OBR 17, 445 N.E.2d 1122. The Allstate policy excludes “punitive or exemplary damages, fines or penalties.” ¹ The attorney fees in this case were granted as a result of punitive damages awarded by the jury upon a finding of malice, presumably based upon a finding that Lahman was driving while intoxicated and fleeing the scene of a previous collision. Thus, Allstate argues, the policy specifically excludes attorney fees under the punitive- or exemplary-damages exclusion.

{¶ 20} However, the exclusion does not refer in any way to attorney fees or litigation expenses. It specifically mentions only punitive or exemplary damages, which, as we have discussed, are conceptually distinct from attorney fees. Therefore, the term “punitive or exemplary damages” does not clearly and unambiguously encompass an award of attorney fees. We decline to read such language into the contract. We instead construe the policy strictly against the insurer. King v. Nationwide Ins. Co. (1988), 35 Ohio...