State Auto had issued a general business liability policy to attorneys D. L. Mains, Jr., Ted R. Howard, and another attorney who later died. The evidence showed that each attorney shared office space in June 1980, and each had separate practices. However, at times they shared staff, telephones and equipment. In July 1992, Mains hired Dawn Springer as a secretary. Not long after that, Springer told Mains that she was HIV positive. She later alleged that she was fired in February 1993 because of her health condition.
In December 1993, Springer filed suit for damages because of wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and tort damages for termination in violation of public policy. State Auto was notified of the action and was requested to defend the insureds. It refused, contending that Dawn Springer's claims did not fall within the policy coverage for either personal or bodily injury. Mains and Howard successfully defended the action on the ground of substandard work by Springer, and the jury found in their favor. The insureds then filed this action against State Auto to recover their costs. The trial court found that State Auto's policy did not cover the action filed by Dawn Springer and that the company had acted in good faith in refusing to defend the insureds. The insureds appealed.
The higher court noted that the policy expressly excluded bodily injury "expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured," and it also excluded bodily injury to an employee arising out of and in the course of employment. Inasmuch as emotional distress is an expected result of termination of employment, the damages claimed by Springer would clearly be excluded by the policy.
The court decided that the insureds had failed to demonstrate that the action filed by Springer was covered by the policy, and the judgment entered in the trial court in favor of State Auto was affirmed.
Mains et al., Appellants v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance
Company--No. 96APE10-1434--Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District,
Franklin County--June 24, 1997--(Discretionary appeal to Supreme
Court of Ohio was not allowed, 685 N. E. 2d 546)--698 North Eastern
Reporter 2d 488.