Intoxicated Driving Not in the Course and Scope of Employment
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gnZ2xstU and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gVb-M9AD and at https://lnkd.in/gn3FZgdf and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4450 posts.
In Gerard Loftus, et al. v. Three Palms Crocker Park, LLC, et al., Appeal by Robert Sotka, 2023-Ohio-927, No. 111639, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga (March 23, 2023) an intoxicated person injures a passenger when he lost control of a vehicle at 120 miles per hour and crashed.
Robert Sotka appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of his employer, Three Palms Crocker Park, LLC (“Three Palms”) and its insurer, State Auto Mutual Insurance Company (“State Auto”).
FACTUAL OVERVIEW
Plaintiff Gerard Loftus was severely injured as a passenger in a single-car accident in which Sotka was the driver. Sotka was the manager at the Three Palms pizzeria restaurant. Sotka had discussions with Loftus about potentially purchasing a restaurant with him.
Sotka left the restaurant at 5:15 p.m. and traveled over 60 miles to the Canoe Club to meet Loftus and a group of Loftus’s friends. At around 10:15 p.m., Sotka was driving exceeding a speed of 120 m.p.h. The car left the road and hit a guardrail, causing extensive damage. Sotka’s passenger, Loftus, suffered extensive and permanent injuries. Sotka was later convicted of the crimes of Operating Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs – OVI, a misdemeanor of the first degree, and Vehicular Assault, a felony of the fourth degree in the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas.
Loftus sued Sotka and Three Palms, Sotka’s employer. State Auto, who had issued Three Palms a business insurance policy, intervened in the lawsuit and sought a declaratory judgment action that it need not provide a defense or coverage because the accident that resulted in Loftus’ injuries was not covered by the insurance policy because Sotka was not conducting or furthering its business when he crashed his car injuring Loftus.
The trial court granted summary judgment to both Three Palms and State Auto.
LAW AND ARGUMENT
An employer may be subject to respondeat superior liability for an employee’s accident when that employee is acting within the scope of employment. Conduct is within the scope of a servant’s employment if it is of the kind which he is employed to perform, occurs substantially within the authorized limits of time and space, and is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.
State Auto’s insurance policy provides liability coverage to Three Palms pursuant to the Commercial General Liability Coverage (“CGL policy”). The parties agreed that the CGL policy specifically excludes damages from motor vehicle accidents pursuant to exclusion. The Auto Endorsement provides CGL coverage for damages arising out of the use of any “non-owned auto” in the business by any person.
There was no dispute that Sotka was driving a non-owned auto as defined by the Auto Endorsement. However, the Auto Endorsement only provides coverage while the non-owned auto is being used in Three Palms’ business.
The trial court determined that neither condition was present upon the record and specifically found that there are no genuine issues of material fact that defendant Sotka was not within the course and scope of his employment with defendant Three Palms Crocker Park, LLC at the time of the subject accident.
The court noted that Sotka left the restaurant at 5:15 p.m., traveled a distance of over 60 miles, and admitted the purpose of his trip was to meet with his friend and soon to be new business partner, Loftus. There was no evidence Sotka went to Catawba for any business purpose to benefit Three Palms. Traveling 60 miles and socializing to pursue personal business unrelated to his employer cannot be deemed to be in the service of Three Palms.
Considering Sotka’s conduct in total, assuming he contacted employees and spoke with others about the general aspects of the operation of a restaurant, those actions are merely incidental to the purpose of his evening: socializing with Loftus and furthering a personal business venture. Moreover, the restaurant employees present on the evening of the accident closed the restaurant without Sotka’s direction or input.
The record reflects that Sotka’s purpose in going to Catawba that evening was to socialize and further his own personal business opportunities. Arguing that the accident occurred while Sotka was acting within the scope of his employment or in furtherance of Three Palms’ business, was unbelievable.
Sotka committed the offenses of operating a vehicle under impairment, and vehicular assault, a felony. This conduct cannot fairly and reasonably be deemed to be an ordinary and natural incident or attribute of the service to be rendered, or a natural, direct, and logical result of the pizzeria.
ZALMA OPINION
After spending an evening drinking and reviewing potential opportunities to obtain a new, and personal business with an acquaintance, and then (while intoxicated) starting a return ride at more than 120 miles per hour to take his acquaintance home or to the restaurant owned by Sotka’s employer, Sotka was convicted of a felony as a result of his driving and the injuries of the plaintiff. The conduct was obviously not part of Sotka’s employment as the manager of a Pizzeria and, therefore, no coverage from the employer or the employer’s insurer.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf. Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
