1 un/underinsured motorists coverage update robert w. kerpsack, esq., robert w. kerpsack co., l.p.a....
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE
Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq.,
ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A.
21 East State Street, Suite 300
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 242-1000
Facsimile: (614) 242-3948
E-mail: [email protected]
![Page 2: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
UM/UIM UPDATE: TOPICS
• RECENT AMENDMENTS TO UM STATUTE
• RECENT UM DECISIONS RELEASED BY THE OHIO SUPREME COURT
• INTERPLAY BETWEEN CASE LAW AND AMENDMENTS TO THE UM STATUTE
• PENDING CASES BEFORE THE OHIO SUPREME COURT
![Page 3: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
RECENT AMENDMENTS TO RC. 3937.18
AMENDMENT DATE CHANGE
S.B. 20 10/20/94 UIM COV.
NOT EXCESS
H.B. 261 9/3/97 DEFINES “MO. VEH. LIAB. INS. POLICY”
S.B. 57 9/24/99 DEFINES “UMBRELLA POLICY”
![Page 4: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
RECENT AMENDMENTS TO RC. 3937.18
• S.B. 267 (EFFECTIVE 9/21/00): – INSURED WD BENEFICIARY MUST
SUSTAIN BODILY INJURY– POLICY CHANGES PER UM STATUTE
OKAY DURING 2-YR GUARANTEE PRD– NO NEED TO RE-OFFER UM/UIM
COVERAGE AT RENEWAL OF POLICY– INTRA-FAMILY EXCLUSION
ELIMINATED
![Page 5: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
WHICH AMENDMENT TO R.C. 3937.18 APPLIES?
• Ross v. Farmers Ins. Group (1998), 82 Ohio St. 3d 281– Statute in effect on date of policy
issuance or renewal applies.
• Hillyer v. Great Am. Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St. 3d 410– Same rule applies to liability policies.
![Page 6: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
DID S.B. 20 OVERRULE SEXTON?
• Can an insured present a UM claim against their own policy for the death of a non-resident relative?
Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88Ohio St. 3d 27:
– “R.C. 3937.18(A)(1), as amended by Am. Sub. S.B. 20, does not permit an insurer to limit uninsured motorist coverage in such a way that an insured must suffer bodily injury, sickness, or disease in order to recover damages from the insurer.”
![Page 7: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
OHIO LEGISLATURE AT WORK
• S.B. 267 (EFFECTIVE 9/21/00):– LEGISLATIVELY “OVERRULES” MOORE
• POLICIES WRITTEN AFTER 9/21/00:– INSURED MUST SUSTAIN BODILY
INJURY
![Page 8: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
TWO-YEAR UM/UIM COVERAGE GUARANTEE
• R.C. 3937.31(A)
– Automobile insurance policies shall be issued “for a policy period of not less than two years or guaranteed renewable for successive policy periods totaling not less than two years.”
![Page 9: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
APPLYING POLICY ENDORSEMENTS THAT
CONFORM TO R.C. 3937.31(A)
• Townsend v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Aug. 14, 1998), Sandusky App. No. S-97-059, unreported
• 1/25/94 Policy first issued1/25/95 Endorsement added (S.B. 20)8/23/95 DOL
![Page 10: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Townsend v. State Farm
• HELD: Insurer could not enforce a policy endorsement (reducing UM/UIM coverage consistent with S.B. 20) that is implemented during the two-year coverage guarantee period required by R.C. 3937.31
• HELD: “The language of the policy establishes that the renewals constitute one continuing contract for insurance during the two-year guarantee period.”
![Page 11: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
APPLYING POLICY ENDORSEMENTS THAT
CONFORM TO R.C. 3937.31(A)
• Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246
• 12/12/83 Policy first issued• 12/12/93 Policy renewed• 10/20/94 S.B. 20 Effective• 12/12/94 Policy renewed• 4/2/95 DOL
![Page 12: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Wolfe v. Wolfe
• OH Supreme Court Held:
– R.C. 3937.31(A) provides a two year guarantee period during which a policy cannot be altered. The guarantee period is not limited to the first two years after inception of the policy.
– A new 2-year guarantee period commences every two years
![Page 13: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Implication of Wolfe v. Wolfe #1
• Every two years, there is a “window” of opportunity (only) for the insurer to add a policy endorsement
• Are endorsements added outside the two-year “window” void?
– Do we now need to obtain a complete policy history in order to determine which policy endorsements, if any, are valid?
![Page 14: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Implication of Wolfe v. Wolfe #2
• It must be determined when the policy was originally issued in order to determine where you are in the two-year guarantee period
– Obtaining applications for insurance policies may become standard practice
![Page 15: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Implication of Wolfe v. Wolfe #3
• Wolfe dicta:– “Were we to adopt the appellee’s (insurer’s)
argument (that each renewed policy is a “new” policy), insurance companies would have the unenviable task of complying with R.C. 3937.18(A) every time a renewal constituted a new policy of insurance.”
• Implication: Insurers need to obtain a new rejection of UM coverage every 2 years!
![Page 16: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Implication of Wolfe v. Wolfe #4
• When a court declares insurance policy language to be ambiguous, is the insurer precluded from curing the ambiguity until the arrival of the two-year anniversary of the last policy renewal?
![Page 17: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
BUT . . .
• S.B. 267 (EFFECTIVE 9/21/00) ADDED R.C. 3937.18(E):
– INSURERS ARE PERMITTED TO CHANGE THEIR POLICIES DURING THE TWO-YEAR GUARANTEE PERIOD SO LONG AS THOSE CHANGES ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSEQUENT STATUTORY CHANGES
![Page 18: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
BUT . . .
• S.B. 267 ALSO CHANGES
R.C. 3937.18(C):
– ELIMINATES THE REQUIREMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL MANDATORY OFFERING/EXPRESS REJECTION (OR REDUCTION) OF UM/UIM COVERAGE
![Page 19: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
VALID OFFERS/REJECTIONS OF UM COVERAGE
Linko v. Indemn. Ins. Co. of N. Am. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 445
– Decided December 27, 2000– Holdings:
1) Any insured under an auto insurance policy has standing to challenge the validity of the UM rejection
![Page 20: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
LINKO HOLDINGS (CON’T)
2) A valid offer of UM coverage must contain:a) A written description of the
coverage;b) A written disclosure of the
premium for the coverage; andc) A written statement of the
coverage limits
![Page 21: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
LINKO HOLDINGS (CON’T)
3) A valid offer of UM coverage must
contain the name of each named insured under the policy;
4) A valid rejection of UM coverage must contain the signature of each named insured under the policy; and
![Page 22: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
LINKO HOLDINGS (CON’T)
5) A valid rejection of UM coverage by a parent corporation on behalf of its subsidiary companies must contain each subsidiaries’ written authorization for rejection.
![Page 23: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
IMPLICATION OF LINKO #1
• ALL STANDARD ISO UM OFFER/REJECTION FORMS ARE INVALIDATED!
– ALL REJECTIONS/SELECTIONS OF LESSER UM/UIM COVERAGE IN OHIO ARE INVALID!
![Page 24: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
IMPLICATION OF LINKO #2
• DOES LINKO SURVIVE H.B. 261’S PRESUMPTION THAT A REJECTION OF UM COVERAGE IS VALID? (EFFECTIVE 9/3/97)
– A rejection that is presumed valid is not necessarily a legally adequate rejection
![Page 25: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
IMPLICATION OF LINKO #3
• LOOK FOR THE OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO “LEGISLATIVELY OVERRULE” LINKO
![Page 26: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
UM COVERAGE BY OPERATION OF LAW
• Commercial General Liability Policies
• Employers’ Auto/Commercial Policies
• Homeowners, Renters, Farmowners Policies
![Page 27: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
GENERAL COMMERCIAL LIABILITY POLICIES
Selander v. Erie Ins. Group (1999), 85 Ohio St. 3d 54:
Business liability policies do not cover a particular vehicle, but do cover an insured’s vicarious liability for the use of unspecified, non-owned (hired) vehicles; therefore, they are “motor vehicle liability insurance policies” subject to R.C. 3937.18.
![Page 28: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
EMPLOYERS’ AUTO/COMMERCIAL
INSURANCE POLICIES
• Policies insuring corporate named insureds define the “insured” to include “1) you (the named insured corporation); and 2) if you are an individual, your relatives.”
![Page 29: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
EMPLOYERS’ AUTO/COMMERCIAL
INSURANCE POLICIES
• The word “you” is ambiguous when applied to a corporation.
• “You” can be construed to mean employees of the corporation because it is nonsensical to provide UM/UIM insurance to a corporation.
![Page 30: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
EMPLOYERS’ AUTO/COMMERCIAL
INSURANCE POLICIES
• Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St. 3d 660; Bagnoli v. Northbrook Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (1999), 86 Ohio St. 314 (employee need not be in the scope and course of employment or operating a company auto).
• Ezawa v. Yasuda Fire & Marine (1999), 86 Ohio St. 3d. 557 (resident relatives of employee’s household are covered under employer’s UM policy).
![Page 31: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
HOMEOWNERS-TYPE POLICIES
• Coverage for “Motor Vehicles” Excluded
• Policies then Undefine the Term “Motor Vehicle:”
“A ‘motor vehicle’ means . . . a motorized land vehicle owned by an insured and
designed for recreational use off public roads, while off an insured location.”
![Page 32: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
HOMEOWNERS-TYPE POLICIES
IMPLICATION:
Non-owned recreational vehicles used on an insured location are not excluded.
![Page 33: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
HOMEOWNERS-TYPE POLICIES
• LEGAL ARGUMENT:
– If an insurance policy provides liability coverage for motor vehicles, even in a limited scope, then it is a “motor vehicle liability insurance policy” that is subject to R.C. 3937.18.
![Page 34: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
HOMEOWNERS-TYPE POLICIES
UNDISPUTED:
UM/UIM coverage was not offered and expressly rejected by insured; therefore,
the policy provides UM/UIM coverage by operation of R.C. 3937.18.
![Page 35: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
HOMEOWNERS-TYPE POLICIES
• CASE LAW:
– Davidson v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. (Dec. 8, 1999), Franklin App. No. 99AP-163, unreported • Accepted 4/19/00 by Ohio Supreme Court
on discretionary appeal and a certified conflict with Overton v. Western Reserve Group (Dec. 8, 1999), Wayne App. No. 99CA0007, unreported.
• ORAL ARGUMENT: 11/29/00
![Page 36: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
HOMEOWNERS-TYPE POLICIES
• Davidson policy provides bodily injury liability coverage for a “residence employee” operating a motor vehicle in the scope of employment by an insured.
– Overton policy does not provide such coverage.
![Page 37: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
UM COVERAGE BY OPERATION OF LAW
• Myers v. Safeco Ins. Co. (Feb. 18, 2000), Licking App. No. 99CA00083, unreported
– Held: Plaintiff entitled to UIM coverage under homeowners policy even after releasing the tortfeasor without the consent of the insurer
– UIM coverage provided by operation of R.C. 3937.18, which contains no subrogation clause
![Page 38: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
UM COVERAGE BY OPERATION OF LAW
• Myers v. Safeco Ins. Co.:
– Accepted 7/19/00 by Ohio Supreme Court on discretionary appeal and certified conflict
– Briefing stayed pending decision in Davidson
![Page 39: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
UM COVERAGE BY OPERATION OF LAW
• R.C. 3937.18 (A)(2) provides only for a reduction of UIM coverage by the amounts of bodily injury liability insurance coverage available to persons “liable” to the insured.
• R.C. 3937.18(A)(2) does not include any subrogation clauses, anti-stacking clauses, or “other insurance” clauses.
![Page 40: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS TO
R.C. 3937.18
• ARE THE UM “FLOOD GATES” OPENED OR CLOSED?
• S.B. 267 MAY BE APPLIED ONLY PROSPECTIVELY (AFTER 9/21/00)
![Page 41: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
TWO-YEAR UM/UIM COVERAGE GUARANTEE
• CHANGES TO POLICIES PURCHASED OR RENEWED PRIOR TO 9/21/00 (EFFECTIVE DATE OF S.B. 267) ARE PROBABLY INVALID FOR TWO YEARS (UP TO 9/20/02)
• IMPLICATION: MOORE, SELANDER MAY BE STILL BE ALIVE PER WOLFE
![Page 42: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
PENDING CASES IN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT
• Clark v. Scarpelli, Case No. 00-374
– Issue: Whether the Mid-Century policy language at issue is sufficient to limit recovery in a wrongful death claim to the “per person” limits of UM coverage
• Is coverage for “injury to relationship” ambiguous?
• Oral Argument: 11/29/00
![Page 43: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
PENDING CASES
• Michael v. Reliance National Ins. Co., Case No. 00-1323– Issues:
• Is S.B. 20 Constitutional• May insurers limit the amount of
liability coverage in wrongful death claims to a single “per person” limit
• Accepted Oct. 2000
![Page 44: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
PENDING CASES• Littrell v. Wigglesworth, Case Nos. 00-745 and
00-801– Issue: Does a wrongful death beneficiary have
UIM coverage when the tortfeasor’s coverage equals or exceeds the UIM policy limit and the amount “available for payment” to the insured is less than the policy limits because of multiple claimants
– Oral Argument: 1/30/01
![Page 45: 1 UN/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE UPDATE Robert W. Kerpsack, Esq., ROBERT W. KERPSACK CO., L.P.A. 21 East State Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070323/56649dd45503460f94acbdfd/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
PENDING CASES
• Holeton v. Crosse Cartage, Case No. 00-428
– Issue: Is Ohio’s workers’ compensation subrogation statute constitutional?
– Oral Argument: 10/10/00