 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Arn v. McLean2/18/2005
3937.30 to 3937.39 of the Revised Code, includes refusal to renew a policy with at least the coverages, included insureds, and policy limits provided at the end of the next preceding policy period."
{ } According to the McLeans, this language means that an insurer must retain all pre-existing coverages, including UIM coverage arising by operation of law, when it renews a policy of insurance during the two-year period. We disagree. In the first place, this argument ignores the clear meaning of R.C. 3937.31(E), which was added by S.B. 267. It also ignores the very explicit intent of the legislature as expressed in Section 5 of S.B. 267. As we noted, the legislature stated that insurers may modify policies during the two-year period of guaranteed coverage. Admittedly, the legislature could have changed the second sentence of R.C. 3937.31(A) to remove any ambiguity. However, in view of the explicit description of legislative intent, we are not going to grasp at straws to invalidate the General Assembly's intended result.
{ } Consequently, we agree with State Farm that S.B. 97 applies to this case. We also find that the application is not retroactive, since it covers only the policy period beginning after the effective date of S. B. 97. Young v Cincinnati Ins. Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 83295, 2004-Ohio-54, at .
{ } The McLeans' final argument in this regard is that even if S.B. 97 applies, State Farm's action were not sufficient to affect the coverage when the policy was renewed. Again, we disagree. At the time the February 21, 2002 renewal certificate was issued, R.C. 3937.18(A) stated:
{ } "Any policy of insurance delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state that insures against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle, may, but is not required to, include uninsured motorist coverage, underinsured motorist coverage, or both uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages."
{ } In S. B. 97, the General Assembly also eliminated R.C. 3937.18(C), which had dealt with the insured's rejection of UM/UIM coverage. In addition, S.B. 97 pointedly expressed the General Assembly's intent to do the following:
{ } "(1) Eliminate any requirement of the mandatory offer of uninsured motorist coverage, underinsured motorist coverage, or both uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages;
{ } "(2) Eliminate the possibility of uninsured motorist coverage, underinsured motorist coverage, or both uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages being implied as a matter of law in any insurance policy;
{ } "* * *
{ } "(4) Eliminate any requirement of a written offer, selection, or rejection form for uninsured motorist coverage, underinsured motorist coverage, or both uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages from any transaction for an insurance policy." S.B. 97, Section 3(B).
{ } S.B. 97, Section 3(E) also indicates the General Assembly's intent to supersede the Ohio Supreme Court's holdings in various cases, including Linko v. Indemn. Ins. Co. of N. Am. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 445, 739 N.E.2d 338, and Gyori v. Johnston Coca-Cola Bottling Group, Inc. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 565, 669 N.E.2d 824, as well as their progeny. Both Gyori and Linko dealt with the need for written offers and rejections of UIM coverage.
{ } Consequently, at the time of the February 21, 2002 renewal, State Farm did not have to offer or include UM/UIM coverage with its insurance policies, and such coverage could no longer
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|