.

Defense Digest

The Evolution of Political Subdivision Immunity in Ohio

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 3, September 2024

September 1, 2024

Key Points: 

  • A.W. v. Board of Education of Twinsburg discusses political subdivision immunity in Ohio. 
  • Appellate court discussed application of political subdivision immunity to public school districts. 

In June 2024, in A.W. v. Board of Education of Twinsburg, 2024 WL 3220270 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. June 28, 2024), an Ohio appellate court issued a decision shedding light on political subdivision immunity in the state. More specifically, the court discussed its application to public school districts. 

The case stems from a physical altercation that took place between two minors, referred to as A.W. and M.G., on school property. Shortly after the fight began, school personnel intervened to break up the students. After the altercation, A.W. was sent home from school without receiving medical attention. Within 24 hours of the attack, A.W. sought treatment at an emergency room because she was suffering from severe headaches, nausea, and vomiting. She was ultimately diagnosed with a concussion.

On March 17, 2023, A.W. and her parents filed a complaint in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas against M.G., his parents, and the Twinsburg City School District Board of Education. The complaint alleged causes of action against the Board for recklessly failing to exercise control of a student, negligently failing to exercise control of a student, recklessly failing to provide necessary medical attention, and negligently failing to provide necessary medical attention. 

After the complaint was filed, the Board filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that, as a political subdivision, it was entitled to immunity pursuant to Chapter 2744 of the Ohio Revised Code. The plaintiff did not respond to the motion, but it was, nonetheless, denied by the trial court. In its denial, the trial court found that the complaint pled sufficient material allegations to show the Board was not entitled to political subdivision immunity. 

The Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act is codified in R.C. 2744.01, and it establishes a three-tiered analysis for determining whether a political subdivision is immune from liability. “Under the first tier of the analysis, political subdivisions enjoy a general grant of immunity for any injuries, deaths, or losses allegedly caused by any act or omission of the political subdivision or [its] employee in connection with a governmental or proprietary function.” Hortman v. Miamisburg, 110 Ohio St.3d 194, 196–197 (2006). The second tier requires an analysis as to whether an exception applies to a political subdivision’s comprehensive immunity. The exceptions are as follows: 

  1. injury, death, or loss caused by the negligent operation of any motor vehicle by a political subdivision’s employee;
  2. injury, death, or loss caused by the negligent performance of acts with respect to proprietary functions;
  3. injury, death, or loss to person or property caused by their negligent failure to keep public roads in repair and other negligent failure to remove obstructions from public roads;
  4. injury, death, or loss to person or property that is caused by the negligence of their employees and that occurs within or on the grounds of, and is due to physical defects within or on the grounds of, buildings that are used in connection with the performance of a governmental function; and
  5. injury, death, or loss to person or property when civil liability is expressly imposed upon the political subdivision by a section of the Revised Code.

Under the third tier, immunity may be restored, and the political subdivision will not be liable if one of the defenses enumerated in R.C. 2744.03(A) applies. Moss v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation, 185 Ohio App.3d 395, 401 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2014) .

As for the first tier, it was undisputed that the Board is a governmental agency/organization and, therefore, is granted broad governmental immunity. With regard to the second tier, however, the plaintiff argued that the Board was not entitled to immunity because it was engaged in a proprietary function—the second exception under R.C. 2744.01. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the Board engaged in two proprietary functions: Failing to control M.G., thereby allowing him to attack A.W., and failing to provide A.W. with medical attention following the attack. The trial court agreed, holding that the Board may be liable for injury to a person caused by negligent performance of acts by their employees with respect to providing a public school education.

On appeal, the Ninth District disagreed with the trial court’s conclusion, holding that “neither the Board nor its employees were engaged in proprietary functions as required.” The appellate court further explained that R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(c) specifically designates “[t]he provision of a system of public education” as a governmental function. The Board’s exercise of control over the students and its provision of medical care for the students cannot be deemed proprietary functions under existing law. These functions must be strictly categorized as governmental functions. Therefore, the Board must be granted immunity under R.C. 2744.01. 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 3, September 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Thought Leadership

Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud

On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy.  The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal.  The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount.  Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.  The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.”  Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970).  The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages.  However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority.  *Thomas F. Glassman, a shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Cincinnati office, filed a brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, in support of the insurer’s position.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

State of Insurance: Q2 Notes From Pennsylvania

Thought Leadership

The Best Defense is Already in the File: Documentation in Civil Rights Litigation

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney