Injured by a State Employee? How Ohio's Court of Claims Deadline and Immunity Process Work After H.B. 110

Published October 19, 2021 · New Laws

An ODOT dump truck backs into your car in a work zone on I-675. A state trooper's cruiser runs a light. A Wright State University van sideswipes you on Colonel Glenn Highway, or a patient is hurt at a state-run facility. In each case the person at fault works for the State of Ohio, and the claim does not go to the Montgomery or Greene County courthouse. It goes to a special court in Columbus, under special rules.

Those rules changed in a few important ways on September 30, 2021, when provisions of Am. Sub. H.B. 110, this year's state budget bill, took effect. Most of that bill is about spending, but tucked inside it were amendments to the two statutes that govern injury claims against the state. This post explains how the process works now.

Claims against the state go to the Court of Claims

Under R.C. 2743.02(A)(1), the State of Ohio waives its immunity and agrees to be sued in the Ohio Court of Claims, with its liability decided under the same rules of law that apply between private parties, subject to the limits in the chapter. The state itself is the only defendant in an original action there, under R.C. 2743.02(E). "The state" includes agencies such as ODOT and the Highway Patrol, and state universities.

Two limits deserve attention up front:

• The public-duty rule. R.C. 2743.02(A)(3) makes the state immune in claims about performing or failing to perform a "public duty," unless the injured person can show a special relationship with the state. Under R.C. 2743.01, "public duty" includes activities such as inspecting, licensing, supervising, law enforcement, and emergency response, so this defense can come up even in some crash cases.
• Offsets. Under R.C. 2743.02(D), recoveries against the state are reduced by insurance proceeds, disability awards, and other collateral recovery. More on that below, because H.B. 110 changed it.

I discussed how a Court of Claims case against ODOT is proved in our 2019 post on dangerous highways, and what a state-vehicle crash claim can be worth in an earlier post on a $2 million state-employee crash settlement.

The two-year deadline

R.C. 2743.16(A) requires a civil action against the state to be commenced no later than two years after the claim accrues, or within any shorter period that would apply to a similar suit between private parties. That second clause matters. A medical-negligence claim against a state hospital, or an assault claim, carries the shorter deadline that would apply to a private defendant. The two-year period is tolled for minors and persons of unsound mind, as it is in other cases. Our guide chapter on deadlines and the timeline of an Ohio injury case puts these clocks side by side.

What about the employee personally?

State employees have their own personal immunity under R.C. 9.86. It does not apply to civil actions arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, or where the employee acted manifestly outside the scope of the job or with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.

When you want to sue the employee personally on the theory that one of those exceptions applies, R.C. 2743.02(F) requires the claim to be filed first against the state in the Court of Claims. That court has exclusive, original jurisdiction to decide whether the employee is entitled to personal immunity and whether the common pleas court can hear the case against him. The statute protects you while that question is decided: filing the claim "tolls the running of the applicable statute of limitations until the court of claims determines whether the officer or employee is entitled to personal immunity." That tolling sentence was already in the statute before H.B. 110, and the amended version carries it forward unchanged.

There is a trap on the other side. Under R.C. 2743.02(A)(1), filing a civil action in the Court of Claims generally waives any claim against the individual employee based on the same act, unless the court finds the employee acted outside the scope of employment or with malice, bad faith, or recklessness. Which claims to bring, against whom, and in what order is a strategic decision that should be made before anything is filed.

What H.B. 110 changed, effective September 30, 2021

Comparing the old and new versions of the statutes shows three changes that matter to injured people.

1. A broader pre-suit step, now required before filing. For decades, R.C. 2743.16(B) required people hurt by a state employee's operation of a car, truck, aircraft, or watercraft to try first to have the claim settled by the state or its liability insurance. The amended version ties that requirement to claims within the state's risk-management and liability-insurance statutes, R.C. 9.821 to 9.83, sends the request to the Office of Risk Management in the Department of Administrative Services, and adds that no such claim may be filed in the Court of Claims until the claimant has complied. How far that cross-reference reaches beyond vehicle claims has not been tested in the courts, so the cautious course is to present the claim to the state before filing.

The good news is that the deadline protections remain. Under R.C. 2743.16(D), the time between submitting the claim to the state and the state's settlement or written refusal does not count against the limitations period, and the statute of limitations on a claim against the employee does not run while the action against the state is pending. But a settlement accepted through that process is final, operates as a complete release of the state agency, and waives claims against the individual employee. Do not accept a risk-management offer without understanding what you are giving up.

2. Risk-management files are confidential. New R.C. 2743.16(C) makes the summaries, reports, and records the Office of Risk Management keeps on claims against the state confidential and not subject to discovery or use as evidence. You will not get the state's internal claim evaluation, which makes your own early investigation more important.

3. A broader offset. R.C. 2743.02(D) used to reduce recoveries against the state by collateral recovery "received by the claimant." It now reaches collateral recovery the claimant "receives or is entitled to." Benefits you are eligible for but never claimed may now be counted against your recovery. That makes it more important than ever to understand every coverage you have; our guide chapter on using your own insurance explains health insurance, MedPay, and UM/UIM.

What this means for you

If a state employee or state agency caused your injury, the path is different from an ordinary crash claim from the first day. There is a separate court, a pre-suit settlement step, a waiver rule that can eliminate claims against the employee, and an offset that can reduce what you recover. None of it is impossible to navigate, but all of it rewards planning and punishes guesswork. Our claims against the government practice handles cases against the State of Ohio, as well as cities, counties, and school districts.