Neal-Pettit v. Lahman
125 Ohio St. 3d 327, 2010 Ohio 1829 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Ohio law, attorney's fees awarded due to a finding of malice are conceptually distinct from punitive damages and are considered a form of compensatory damages. An insurer must cover such fees under a policy for 'damages...because of bodily injury' unless the policy explicitly and unambiguously excludes them, as the public policy against insuring punitive damages does not extend to these attorney's fees.
Facts:
- On March 27, 2003, Linda Lahman, while intoxicated and fleeing the scene of a prior collision, struck a vehicle driven by Kimberly Neal-Pettit.
- Neal-Pettit sustained personal injuries as a result of the accident.
- A jury later found that Lahman had acted with malice.
- At the time of the accident, Lahman was insured by Allstate Insurance Company under an automobile policy.
- The Allstate policy stated it would pay 'damages which an insured person is legally obligated to pay because of... bodily injury.'
- The policy also contained a provision specifically excluding coverage for 'punitive or exemplary damages, fines or penalties.'
Procedural Posture:
- Kimberly Neal-Pettit sued Linda Lahman in a state trial court for personal injuries.
- A jury found for Neal-Pettit, awarding her compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees based on a finding of malice.
- The trial court set the amount of attorney's fees at $46,825.
- Allstate, Lahman's insurer, paid the compensatory damages but refused to pay the punitive damages and attorney's fees.
- Neal-Pettit filed a supplemental complaint against Allstate in the trial court to recover the attorney's fees.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Neal-Pettit.
- Allstate, as appellant, appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted Allstate's discretionary appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an automobile insurance policy that covers damages an insured is legally obligated to pay 'because of bodily injury,' but excludes 'punitive or exemplary damages,' require an insurer to pay for an award of attorney's fees that resulted from a finding of malice and an accompanying award of punitive damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Lanzinger, J.
Yes. An insurer is required to pay for an award of attorney's fees that resulted from a finding of malice, even when the policy excludes punitive damages. Ohio law treats attorney's fees awarded in tort actions involving malice as a component of compensatory damages, not as punishment. The court reasoned that such fees are conceptually distinct from punitive damages. Because the policy's exclusion did not clearly and unambiguously mention attorney's fees, it could not be enforced to deny coverage. Furthermore, while the fees were awarded alongside punitive damages, they ultimately stemmed from the bodily injury, thus falling within the policy's general coverage grant. Finally, the public policy and state statute (R.C. 3937.182(B)) prohibiting insurance coverage for punitive damages do not extend to attorney's fees, as the statute does not mention them.
Dissenting - Lundberg Stratton, J.
No. An insurer should not be required to pay for attorney's fees awarded in conjunction with punitive damages. The dissenting opinion argued that an award of attorney's fees is inextricably intertwined with and dependent upon an award of punitive damages; if the punitive damages award is reversed, the fee award must also be reversed. Therefore, the attorney's fees are punitive in nature, serving as a 'penalty' for malicious conduct, not as compensation for bodily injury. As such, they should be considered excluded under the policy's provision for 'punitive or exemplary damages, fines or penalties,' and allowing an insurer to pay them would violate the same public policy that prohibits insuring punitive damages.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction in Ohio law between punitive damages and attorney's fees awarded for malicious conduct, classifying the latter as insurable compensatory damages. It places a significant burden on insurers to draft exclusion clauses with high specificity; a general exclusion for 'punitive damages' is insufficient to exclude coverage for related attorney's fees. The ruling narrowly interprets the public policy against insuring malicious conduct, refusing to extend it beyond punitive damages themselves, thereby potentially increasing insurers' exposure in tort cases involving findings of malice.
