Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-18-04037/USCOURTS-ca6-18-04037-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cuyahoga Heights Local School District
Appellant
Midwestern Indemnity Company
Appellee
Netherlands Insurance Company
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 19a0334n.06

Case No. 18-4037

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

CUYAHOGA HEIGHTS LOCAL SCHOOL 

DISTRICT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NETHERLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY 

and MIDWESTERN INDEMNITY 

COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

BEFORE: SILER, BATCHELDER, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

SILER, Circuit Judge. Cuyahoga Heights Local School District (“the District”) sued its 

insurers, Netherlands Insurance Company and Midwestern Indemnity Company (“Insurers”),

seeking satisfaction of a state-court judgment it obtained against its employee Peter Guerrera. The 

district court granted summary judgment to the Insurers because Guerrera was not an insured under 

policies written by the Insurers. We AFFIRM.

I.

The District was victim of a criminal fraud and theft scheme orchestrated by Joseph 

Palazzo, the District’s former Director of Information Technology. Palazzo was convicted of 

 Case: 18-4037 Document: 39-2 Filed: 07/03/2019 Page: 1
Case No. 18-4037, Cuyahoga Heights Local Sch. Dist. v. Netherlands Ins. Co., et al.

- 2 -

conspiracy to commit mail fraud, money laundering conspiracy, and wire fraud. United States v. 

Palazzo, No. 1:13-CR-167 (N.D. Ohio June 14, 2013).

In 2013, the District filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio 

seeking to recover some of the money it lost as a result of the fraud. The complaint included claims 

against its former Superintendent, Peter Guerrera.

Guerrera reported the complaint to the Insurers seeking defense and indemnification based 

on two insurance policies. One policy was between the District and Netherlands Insurance 

Company and provided “School Leaders Errors & Omission Liability Coverage” up to one million

dollars for each wrongful act and one million dollars in the aggregate. The other policy was an 

umbrella policy between the District and Midwestern Indemnity Company. The Insurers denied 

coverage because the policies did not cover claims made by the District against its employees 

working within the scope of their duties. After Guerrera agreed to an interview with the District’s 

attorneys, the District dismissed its claims against Guerrera without prejudice.

Later in 2013, the District again filed suit against Guerrera in the Court of Common Pleas. 

The District alleged that, because of Guerrera’s negligence, negligent hiring, negligent 

supervision, and negligent failure to implement appropriate controls (and other wrongful acts), the 

District sustained losses of over four million dollars. Guerrera admitted all allegations except that 

regarding punitive damages and declined to assert any affirmative defenses. The District and 

Guerrera submitted a proposed judgment and accompanying evidentiary materials to the state 

court. The Insurers declined to participate in the proceedings because they believed the insurance 

policies did not insure Guerrera against suit by the District. The court entered judgment in favor 

of the District in the amount of $4,199,812 and approved a covenant between the parties in which 

 Case: 18-4037 Document: 39-2 Filed: 07/03/2019 Page: 2
Case No. 18-4037, Cuyahoga Heights Local Sch. Dist. v. Netherlands Ins. Co., et al.

- 3 -

the District agreed not to execute the judgment against Guerrera. The court also noted the covenant 

was not the result of any collusion or fraud by either party.

This action against the Insurers was filed in 2016. The District seeks payment under the 

insurance policies for the judgment it obtained against Guerrera.1 Because Guerrera is not an 

“insured” under the policies, the district court is AFFIRMED.

II.

The district court’s decision to grant summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Simpson v. 

Ernst & Young, 100 F.3d 436, 440 (6th Cir. 1996).

III.

The policy between the District and Netherlands Insurance Company, in relevant part,

provides:

SECTION II - WHO IS AN INSURED

Each of the following is an insured:

A. The “educational institution”, and its board of governors, board of 

education, school committee, board of trustees, or commission.

B. Each of the following is also an insured for acts within the scope of their 

duties as such:

***

1. Your “employees”. However . . . no “employee” is an insured for 

“claims” made:

a. By you or by a co-“employee” for “loss’” arising out of and in the 

course of his or her employment or performing duties related to the 

conduct of your business;

 

1

Indiana Insurance Company was originally listed as a defendant. Midwestern Indemnity 

was substituted as a party after removal.

 Case: 18-4037 Document: 39-2 Filed: 07/03/2019 Page: 3
Case No. 18-4037, Cuyahoga Heights Local Sch. Dist. v. Netherlands Ins. Co., et al.

- 4 -

The policy between Midwestern Indemnity Company and the District follows form to the 

Netherlands Policy.

According to the policies, an employee is generally an “insured.” But an exception is set 

out for claims made by the District against its employees for loss arising in the course of 

employment or during the performance of duties related to the District’s business. Thus, an 

employee is not an “insured” for purposes of such a claim.

Those circumstances exist here. The District seeks satisfaction of a judgment resulting 

from a lawsuit the District filed against Guerrera, its employee. As a basis for that suit and 

corresponding judgment, the District alleged that because of “the wrongful acts of Guerrera in the 

performance of . . . School District duties . . . the School District has sustained a loss of over 

$4,000,000[.]” The complaint listed several wrongful acts connected with Guerrera’s duties as 

Superintendent, including “negligent hiring, negligent supervision, [and] negligent failure to 

implement appropriate controls[.]” By the District’s own characterization then, the loss arose in 

the course of Guerrera’s employment.

The District now seeks to satisfy the judgment as a claim under the policies. But the 

policies clearly and unambiguously explain that Guerrera is not an “insured” in such 

circumstances.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-4037 Document: 39-2 Filed: 07/03/2019 Page: 4