Sixth Circuit Affirms that Direct Intent Remains the Standard for Employer Intentional Tort Claims in Ohio

by Kaitlyn Posta, Esq.

In a unanimous decision, the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed that Ohio Revised Code § 2745.01 requires a showing of direct intent to injure in employer liability actions. The Court held that standard liability policies held by employers which exclude “directly intended” bodily injury do not provide coverage for employer intentional tort claims. Encore Indus. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., No. 25-3076, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 32194 (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 2025).

In 2021, an Encore employee died after being crushed while clearing a jam in a machine at work. His family sued Encore in Ohio state court, alleging Encore intentionally exposed him to harm by removing certain safety equipment from the machine. Encore was insured under a commercial general liability policy with excess coverage. Notably, the policies provided Encore with certain liability coverage except for “bodily injury directly intended by the insured.” The case ultimately settled, but the insurers refused to indemnify Encore based on the intentional injury exclusion.

Encore subsequently sued the insurers in the Southern District of Ohio seeking declaratory judgment and alleging breach of contract and bad faith. All parties moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the court ruled in favor of the insurers.

The central issue was determining how R.C. § 2745.01 – Ohio’s statute which allows an employee to pursue an intentional tort claim against their employer – fits in with an insurance policy’s intentional-injury exclusion. For an employer to be held liable under R.C. § 2745.01, the employer must act with “direct” or “specific intent” to cause injury. To assist employees in proving this level of intent, subsection (C) of § 2745.01 creates a rebuttable presumption of direct intent to injure another when there has been the“[d]eliberate removal by an employer of an equipment safety guard’” The Encore Court, citing Ohio Supreme Court precedent affirmed Ohio’s stance that this presumption does not change the intent an employee must prove under the statute since “[t]he whole point of [§] 2745.01(C) is to presume the injurious intent required under divisions (A) and (B) in the absence of direct evidence,” citing Hoyle v. DTJ Enters., Inc., 36 N.E.3d 122, 130-31 (Ohio 2015).

Encore argued that the “rebuttable presumption” in subsection (C) creates a loophole for “substantial certainty” liability, but the Court rejected this argument, reinforcing that specific intent remains the standard under Ohio law. 

In the end, because Encore’s liability in the first lawsuit was based on an alleged intentional tort stemming from the employee’s death and since the insurance policies specifically excluded coverage for injuries that were “directly intended” by the insured, the insurers had no duty to indemnify Encore for the settlement or the judgment. If you have any questions regarding this decision or have any questions concerning insurance coverage matters, please contact a member of our Insurance Coverage Practice Group.