Broad Arbitration Clauses Sweep In Tort Claims, Says Ohio Supreme Court
Today, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a significant decision for arbitration law in U.S. Acute Care Solutions, L.L.C. v. Doctors Company Risk Retention Group Insurance Company, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5010. The Court held that a bad-faith insurance-claim handling dispute — though a tort claim under Ohio law — must be arbitrated when governed by a broad arbitration clause in the underlying insurance policy.
Reaffirming Ohio’s Pro-Arbitration Policy
Justice Hawkins, writing for a unanimous Court, framed the question succinctly: does an arbitration clause in an insurance policy cover a tort-based bad-faith claim? The Court’s answer: yes, when the clause is broad and the dispute cannot be maintained without reference to the contract or the insurer-insured relationship.
Citing Ohio’s long-standing public policy favoring arbitration, the Court emphasized that “all doubts should be resolved in its favor.” That principle, drawn from Hayes v. Oakridge Home and the U.S. Supreme Court’s AT&T Technologies and Warrior & Gulf decisions, forms the foundation of Ohio’s presumption of arbitrability. As the Court reiterated, an order to arbitrate should not be denied unless it can be said with positive assurance that the clause does not cover the dispute.
The Case Background
U.S. Acute Care Solutions (“USACS”), a national emergency-medicine provider based in Canton, Ohio, was insured by The Doctors Company Risk Retention Group (“TDC”). When a medical-malpractice lawsuit arose in Connecticut, TDC defended the claim under its policy but disagreed with USACS over settlement strategy. USACS ultimately self-funded a settlement and later sued TDC in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas for bad-faith insurance-claim handling, seeking reimbursement for the settlement and related expenses.
TDC moved to compel arbitration under the policy’s arbitration clause, which — as amended by a change endorsement — required that “any dispute between [USACS] and [TDC] relating to this Policy (including any disputes regarding [TDC’s] contractual obligations)” be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the AAA’s Commercial Rules.
The trial court granted the motion, but the Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that bad-faith claims are extracontractual torts and therefore beyond the reach of the arbitration endorsement. That ruling relied heavily on this Court’s 2023 decision in Scott Fetzer Co. v. American Home Assurance Co., which described bad-faith claims as arising “by operation of law.”
Today’s decision firmly rejects that interpretation.
Rejecting the Fifth District’s Narrow View
The Supreme Court explained that Scott Fetzer concerned choice-of-law rules, not arbitrability. While acknowledging that bad-faith insurance claims are torts, the Court made clear that the tort/contract distinction does not dictate whether a claim is arbitrable.
Instead, the controlling test — derived from Aetna Health v. Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati and the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Fazio v. Lehman Brothers — asks whether the action could be maintained without reference to the contract or the relationship at issue. Because USACS’s bad-faith claim could not be maintained without reference to the insurance policy or the insurer-insured relationship, the claim fell within the clause’s scope.
“Even real torts,” the Court quoted from Fazio, “can be covered by arbitration clauses if the allegations ‘touch matters’ covered by the agreement.”
That principle proved decisive. The arbitration clause at issue, the Court found, was broad — covering “any dispute relating to the policy.” Under such language, creative pleading cannot defeat arbitration. What matters is not how the claim is labeled but whether it touches the contractual relationship between the parties.
The Power of Broad Language
The Court’s opinion underscores the importance of drafting. The initial version of the policy’s arbitration clause expressly covered “extra-contractual obligations.” That phrase was later deleted by endorsement, leaving language that referenced “contractual obligations.”
USACS argued that this deletion narrowed the clause and impliedly excluded bad-faith claims. The Court disagreed. Nothing in the endorsement, it said, indicated any intent to exclude such claims from arbitration. The clause still covered “any dispute relating to this policy” — and that, the Court concluded, is broad enough to encompass disputes over claim handling and settlement conduct.
Because the bad-faith claim could not be maintained without reference to the policy or the insurer-insured relationship, and because no “express exclusion or other forceful evidence” limited the clause, the presumption of arbitrability controlled. The Court therefore reversed the Fifth District and reinstated the trial court’s order compelling arbitration.
Implications for Practitioners
This ruling carries substantial implications for both insurers and policyholders — and, more broadly, for all drafters and litigators navigating arbitration clauses in Ohio.
Labeling the claim does not control. Whether a claim is styled as a tort or a contract action is less important than whether it touches the contractual relationship.
Broad arbitration clauses sweep widely. Clauses using phrases like “any dispute relating to” the contract will presumptively include even extra-contractual theories unless expressly excluded.
Ohio’s presumption of arbitrability remains strong. Today’s opinion reinforces that courts should compel arbitration unless it can be said with positive assurance that the clause does not apply.
For insurers, this decision offers predictability: policy disputes that arise from the insurer-insured relationship will generally proceed in arbitration if the clause is broadly worded. For policyholders, it serves as a reminder to scrutinize arbitration provisions closely when negotiating or renewing coverage.
A Broader Message: Creative Pleading Won’t Defeat Arbitration
Perhaps the most enduring takeaway is the Court’s reaffirmation that “creative pleading” cannot sidestep a broad arbitration agreement. Even tort claims — including allegations of bad-faith conduct, negligence, or misrepresentation — may fall within a clause when the facts and duties at issue flow from the contractual relationship.
The Court’s approach aligns with federal precedent under the Federal Arbitration Act and keeps Ohio in step with jurisdictions that broadly construe arbitration clauses to avoid fragmentation of related disputes.
In closing, with U.S. Acute Care Solutions v. Doctors Company RRG, the Supreme Court of Ohio has again underscored that arbitration is not easily avoided. Broad arbitration language means what it says, and parties who agree to arbitrate “any dispute relating to” their contract will be held to that commitment — even when the claim is framed as a tort.
For arbitrators, mediators, and counsel alike, the message is clear: when arbitration language is expansive, Ohio courts will enforce it expansively. The result is a reaffirmation of predictability, contractual intent, and Ohio’s enduring pro-arbitration policy.