Supreme Court
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc.
- Case number: 23-0006
- Legal category: Insurance
- Subtype: Policies/Coverage
- Set for oral argument: October 30, 2024
Case Summary
This case concerns the interpretation of an excess insurance policy that follows an underlying policy, except where the terms, conditions, definitions, and exclusions of the policies conflict.
The Patterson entities hired Marsh USA, an insurance broker, to obtain multiple layers of general liability insurance coverage. Through Marsh, Patterson obtained an underlying policy that provides coverage for defense costs, including attorney’s fees. Patterson also obtained multiple policies providing excess layers of coverage, including a policy issued by Ohio Casualty. The Ohio Casualty policy contract states that except for the “terms, conditions, definitions and exclusions” set out in the Ohio Casualty policy, its coverage follows the underlying policy. Patterson was sued for personal injuries following an industrial accident and settled with the plaintiffs. Patterson then sought coverage from its insurers. Ohio Casualty promptly provided its share of the settlement amount, but it refused coverage for Patterson’s defense costs.
Patterson sued both Ohio Casualty and Marsh, asserting that either Ohio Casualty breached the insurance contract by failing to provide coverage for defense costs or else Marsh falsely represented to Patterson that the Ohio Casualty policy covered defense costs. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment on the issue of coverage. The trial court concluded that the Ohio Casualty policy does cover defense costs and granted summary judgment for Patterson. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that the Ohio Casualty policy does not specifically disclaim the underlying policy’s coverage of defense costs.
Ohio Casualty filed a petition for review, arguing that its policy only provides coverage for certain types of loss that does not include defense costs. Ohio Casualty contends that because it set out definitions related to covered loss in its policy, those definitions control over the definitions related to covered loss in the underlying policy. The Court granted the petition for review.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.