Under Ohio law, wrongful death claims are not considered derivative of survival claims, but are distinct and independent. Therefore, a decedent cannot bind his or her beneficiaries to arbitrate wrongful death claims by consenting to arbitration of survival claims, according to the Ohio Supreme Court.

In Peters v. Columbus Steel Castings Co., No. 2006-0507, 2007 WL 2809958, (Ohio Sept. 20, 2007), Mr. Peters entered into an employment agreement, which included a dispute resolution plan requiring arbitration of any disputes with Columbus. The agreement also stated that it applied to heirs and beneficiaries of the employee.

Mr. Peters later died on the job as the result of a fall. Peters's widow, Mrs. Peters, brought both survival and wrongful death actions against Columbus. Columbus moved to compel arbitration of both claims. The trial court determined that Mr. Peters had bound himself to the arbitration provision as to the survival action. However, it held that Mrs. Peters was not bound to arbitrate the wrongful death claim, since she was not a signatory to the employment agreement and the wrongful death claim was for injuries she suffered as a result of Mr. Peters's death, not for injuries sustained by Mr. Peters before death. This holding was affirmed by the appeals court, and appealed by Columbus to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Court affirmed, holding that only a signatory could be bound to an arbitration provision, and that wrongful death actions were independent from survival actions.

Therefore, according to the Court, Mrs. Peters could not be bound to the arbitration provision, since she was not a signatory to the employment agreement. The Court noted there was no evidence that Mrs. Peters or any other beneficiary had agreed to be bound by the provision.

The Court also reiterated the lower courts' holdings that survival actions and wrongful death actions were separate and independent causes of action, and that the agreement to be bound to arbitration as to the former did not extend to the latter. Particularly, the Court distinguished survival actions, brought for the decedent's own injuries, from wrongful death actions, brought for the damages suffered by the beneficiaries of the decedent.

While the Court acknowledged that a majority of states treat wrongful death actions as derivative of survival actions, it restated Ohio's position among the minority of states, stating that "the injured person cannot defeat the beneficiaries' right to have a wrongful death action brought on their behalf," since the claims are not yet in existence at the time of the decedent's consent to arbitrate such a claim. Therefore, Mrs. Peters, as a non-signatory, and as person injured outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, was not bound to arbitrate her wrongful death claim against Columbus.