Mumford v. Interplast, Inc., 119 Ohio App. 3d 724

Summary

The court addresses whether a commercial general liability insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify an employer and its employees against claims arising from an intoxicated employee's injuries. It holds that the complaint potentially alleged negligent, covered conduct rather than intended injuries, but that employees acting at an after-work social event were not insureds because they were outside the scope of employment. The court affirms coverage for Interplast and employee Michael McQuinn under specified counts and reverses coverage for the other employees.

Holdings

1. Counts One and Three alleged negligent acts and did not establish that the employees expected or intended Mumford's automobile-accident injuries. The allegations therefore were not outside coverage based on the expected-or-intended-injury exclusion or the policy's definition of an occurrence as an accident.
2. The allegations that the employees participated in a purely social gathering after work and purchased alcohol with an Interplast company credit card did not arguably or potentially establish conduct within the scope of employment. Those employees therefore were not insureds under the policy for Count One, and Indiana Insurance had no duty to defend or indemnify them for that count.
3. Indiana Insurance had a duty to defend Interplast against Count One because the allegations were not shown to be groundless, false, or fraudulent beyond question, even though the allegations were tenuous as to Interplast's legal liability.
4. McQuinn's alleged conduct in requiring Mumford to remove her automobile from Interplast's parking lot was potentially or arguably within the scope of employment because he may have been acting to protect company property or further Interplast's policies. Indiana Insurance therefore had a duty to defend and indemnify McQuinn and Interplast as to Count Three.
5. The policy's exclusion for bodily injury to an employee arising out of and in the course of employment did not apply because Mumford was injured after work while driving from Interplast, and the complaint did not allege that she was acting within the scope and course of her employment when injured.
6. The appellate court declined to consider Indiana Insurance's argument that the policy excluded coverage for an employee who injured a coemployee because Indiana Insurance did not raise that issue in the trial court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mumford's allegations described negligent rather than intentional acts and therefore potentially or arguably fell within the policy's coverage and duty to defend.
2. Whether the coworkers who allegedly furnished alcohol after work were insureds under the policy because their conduct was potentially or arguably within the scope of employment.
3. Whether Interplast and McQuinn were potentially or arguably covered insureds with respect to the allegations that McQuinn required Mumford to drive from the company parking lot.
4. Whether the policy's employee-injury exclusion barred coverage.
5. Whether the appellate court could consider Indiana Insurance's argument concerning a coemployee coverage provision that was not raised in the trial court.

Disposition

other