BlogLine

Broad means broad: Ohio Supreme Court compels arbitration of bad-faith claim

3/23/26

By: Spencer Sukel

If Ohio classifies a bad-faith claim-handling claim as a tort arising by operation of law, is that claim arbitrable? As of November 2025, the Supreme Court of Ohio says yes, it is—at least so long as the controlling arbitration clause uses broad language.

A California-based insurer (“Insurer”) provided a medical malpractice insurance policy to an Ohio-based healthcare provider (“Provider”) which contained an arbitration clause applying to “any dispute between” Insurer and Provider. After Provider was sued for malpractice, the two disagreed on settlement strategy. Provider agreed to self-fund a settlement, then sued Insurer for bad-faith claim-handling to recover that amount.

Relying on the policy’s arbitration clause, Insurer moved to compel arbitration, which the trial court granted. Provider appealed and Ohio’s Fifth Appellate District reversed, holding that the arbitration clause did not apply because Provider’s bad-faith claim-handling claim is a tort that arises by operation of law. Insurer then appealed the appellate court’s decision.

Upon review, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered whether the policy’s arbitration clause was broad or narrow. If the clause was broad, then its application would not be limited to contractual claims but would cover tortious claims if those torts could not be maintained without referring to the policy or parties’ relationship.

Looking at the policy language, which required arbitration of any dispute relating to the policy—including any disputes regarding Insurer’s contractual obligations—the Court construed the clause as broad. Thus, a strong presumption of arbitrability existed, which Provider could only overcome by demonstrating that its claim fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause. The Court concluded that the Provider failed to overcome this presumption because Provider could not identify an exclusion or any other evidence to that point. Therefore, the Court held that the insurance policy’s broad arbitration clause compelled arbitration of Provider’s bad-faith claim-handling claim even though bad-faith claims are considered tort claims in Ohio.

For insurers seeking to arbitrate future bad-faith claim-handling claims in Ohio, the Court’s holding ought to serve as a guide. First, because the Court held that bad-faith claims are in fact arbitrable. But second, because the Court emphasizes that broad language covering any dispute arising from the policy properly extends to bad-faith claims.

For any questions or further clarification, please contact Spencer Sukel at spencer.sukel@fmglaw.com, or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.