Opinion ID: 800001
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ohio state-court cases

Text: In Goodyear, the plaintiff sued a number of insurers seeking a declaratory judgment on claims for pollution-cleanup costs. 769 N.E.2d at 839. The Ohio Supreme Court considered two methods for allocating insurance coverage among the insurers. Id. at 840. The first approach, favored by the plaintiff, was an all sums approach in which the plaintiff may target one insurer, up to the limits of that insurer's policy, for full coverage of the loss. The targeted insurer may then seek contribution from the other insurers for any amounts for which they are potentially responsible. This method places the onus on the targeted insurer, rather than on the policyholder. Under the second approach, the pro rata method, each insurer must pay only the portion of the claim for which it is deemed responsible. This places the burden on the policyholder to join all relevant parties in the lawsuit. The Ohio Supreme Court adopted the all sums approach, noting that such a rule promotes economy for the insured while still permitting insurers to seek contribution from other responsible parties when possible. Id. at 841. That Court further noted that the insurers bear the burden of obtaining contribution from other applicable primary insurance policies as they deem necessary. Id. In Penn General I, Park-Ohio, a coil manufacturer, sought coverage from its insurer, Pennsylvania General, for costs and claims arising out of asbestos exposure at various work sites. 902 N.E.2d at 55. Pennsylvania General sought equitable contribution from three non-targeted insurers (which had not settled), but the trial court denied that request because Park-Ohio and Pennsylvania General had failed to properly notify the other insurers of the claim. Id. at 57. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the Goodyear decision permitting equitable contribution under the all sums approach controlled, and that a decision leaving the whole of the claim obligation on Pennsylvania General would be inequitable. Id. at 58. That court further stated that [s]ince the doctrine of contribution has its basis in the broad principles of equity, it should be liberally applied. Id. at 59. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the notification failure did not result in prejudice to the nontargeted insurers. Penn. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Park-Ohio Inds., 126 Ohio St.3d 98, 930 N.E.2d 800, 808 (2010) ( Penn General II ). AMICO asserts that neither case reveals a willingness to allow non-settling insurers to seek contribution from settling insurers and that such a reading is strained at best. In Goodyear, AMICO notes that the Ohio Supreme Court used the words applicable and responsible to describe the types of insurers from whom non-settling insurers can seek contribution, and it argues that we ought to give meaning to those words.