In Ohio, Decedent’s Arbitration Agreement With Employer Does Not Bar Family’s Wrongful Death Lawsuits

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled 7-0 that a lawsuit brought by the representative of a decedent's estate to recover for the decedent's own injuries is independent of a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by the decedent's survivors for their damages as a result of the death, even though both suits are prosecuted by the same party. In a decision written by Justice Terrence O'Donnell, the Court also held that a decedent cannot bind his or her beneficiaries to arbitrate their wrongful-death claims.

The case involved William Peters, an employee of Columbus Steel Castings (CSC), who suffered fatal injuries on his eighth day of employment when he fell approximately 50 feet from a catwalk while working at the CSC forging plant in Columbus. At the time he was hired, Peters agreed to be bound by a “dispute resolution plan” under which any legal claims or disputes between himself and CSC arising from his employment would be resolved exclusively through mediation and/or arbitration, rather than through a civil lawsuit. The plan included language stating that it applied to “the heirs, beneficiaries, successors and assigns” of the employee.

Shortly after Peters' death, his widow, Alice Peters, filed two civil actions in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, a survivor claim on behalf of her husband's estate and a separate wrongful death claim on behalf of herself and other surviving family members. Mrs. Peters served as both her husband's personal representative in the action on behalf of his estate and as trustee for the family members asserting wrongful death claims on their own behalf.

The company moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that the dispute resolution plan required the claims to be arbitrated. The trial court determined that, while a survival claim for Peters' injuries could only be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution plan, the wrongful-death claim could be brought in court. Alice Peters subsequently dismissed the survival claim to proceed solely on the wrongful-death claim. The company appealed, and the 10th District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's holding. CSC sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the 10th District's ruling.

In today's decision, Justice O'Donnell cited the Supreme Court of Ohio's 1994 holding in Thompson v. Wing that “wrongful-death claims are independent actions belonging to the decedent's next of kin, and therefore an administrator's actions in pursuing relief for injuries to the decedent do not release a defendant from liability for wrongful-death claims.”

Under the provisions of R.C. 2125.02, Justice O'Donnell wrote, “(W)hen an individual is killed by the wrongful act of another, the personal representative of the decedent's estate may bring a survival action for the decedent's own injuries leading to his or her death as well as a wrongful-death action for the injuries suffered by the beneficiaries of the decedent as a result of the death. Although they are pursued by the same nominal party, we have long recognized the separate nature of these claims in Ohio.”

With regard to the applicability of the CSC dispute resolution plan to the beneficiaries' wrongful death claim, Justice O'Donnell wrote: “When Peters signed the arbitration agreement, he agreed to arbitrate his claims against the company, whether brought during his life or after his death. Thus, the provision in the agreement binding Peters's heirs, beneficiaries, successors, and assigns applies to a survival action, which is the vessel used to pursue his claims after his death. However, Peters could not restrict his beneficiaries to arbitration of their wrongful-death claims because he held no right to those claims; they accrued independently to his beneficiaries for the injuries they personally suffered as a result of the death.... Thus, a decedent cannot bind his or her beneficiaries to arbitrate their wrongful-death claims. The beneficiaries can agree to arbitrate these claims themselves, but they are not required to do so. Because Peters's beneficiaries did not sign the plan or any other dispute resolution agreement, they can not be forced into arbitration.”