Litigation Byte

When “Any and All Claims” Means What It Says: Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Broad Arbitration Clause

November 20, 2025

In a recent opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio clarified that a broad arbitration provision meant that all claims – even tort claims – were arbitrable.

Background

What began as a medical malpractice lawsuit quickly devolved into an insurance dispute. An insurance company issued a policy to U.S. Acute Care Solutions, L.L.C. (USACS), which covered the defense of applicable medical malpractice claims. But when USACS submitted a claim to the insurance company for defense of a new lawsuit, the two disagreed on settlement strategy. After opting to pay out a self-funded settlement, USACS brought a bad-faith insurance-claim handling suit against the insurer, hoping to recover the payout funds. The insurer promptly moved to compel arbitration under the insurance policy.

Originally, the insurance policy called for arbitration of any dispute relating to the policy, “including any disputes regarding [the insurer’s] extra-contractual obligations.” But the policy was then amended to include superseding arbitration language: arbitration would now cover any dispute relating to the policy, “including any disputes regarding [the insurer’s] contractual obligations.”

The insurance company argued that the bad-faith claim arose from the policy and its obligations, and the trial court compelled the case to arbitration. USACS then appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, arguing that the claim was not arbitrable because bad-faith insurance-claim handling is a tort arising by operation of law (i.e., an extracontractual matter), and thus outside of the revised policy’s language. The Fifth District agreed with USACS and reversed accordingly. The insurance company appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion focused heavily on the importance of Ohio’s public policy favoring arbitration. If any particular arbitration clause is intended to be broad (usually evidenced by inclusion of the phrase “any claim or controversy arising out of or relating to the agreement”), then there is a presumption of arbitrability. Ohio law interprets that presumption as meaning that courts should only deny a motion to compel arbitration “if the arbitration clause cannot be reasonably read to cover the dispute in question.”

Applying a federal test adopted by the Supreme Court of Ohio in 2006, courts can analyze the presumption of arbitrability by considering whether the relevant claim can be maintained without reference to the underlying contract or relationship between the parties. (See Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati v. Aetna Health, Inc., 2006-Ohio-657). If the claim is fully independent of the contract and relationship, only then can a non-moving party overcome the presumption of arbitrability. The Court rejected a blanket stance that tort claims are outside contractual arbitrability, instead finding that such claims are subject to the same analysis as claims arising directly from a contract.

Because USACS’s bad-faith claim necessarily referred to both the insurance policy and the relationship between the parties, USACS could not overcome Ohio’s presumption of arbitrability. The Supreme Court of Ohio thus reversed and reinstated the trial court’s order compelling the claim into arbitration.

Key Takeaway

Ohio’s strong policy favoring arbitration extends beyond claims arising directly out of contractual obligations. Where parties agree to a broad arbitration agreement, courts will only refuse to compel arbitration if the claim at issue is entirely independent of the contractual relationship between the parties. The Supreme Court of Ohio has now further emphasized that Plaintiffs cannot avoid arbitration by relying on tort claims or by artfully pleading around references to a contract.