underinsured motorist claim in Ohio

2008Group , 82 Ohio St.3d 281 , 1998-Ohio-381 (holding that "for the purpose of determining the scope of coverage on an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time of entering into a contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties").

2006Group of Cos., 82 Ohio St.3d 281 , 1998-Ohio-381 , at syllabus ("For the purpose of determining the scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time of entering into a contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties."); Smith v. Cincinnati Ins.

2005Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660 . {¶ 13} "[F]or the purpose of determining the scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time of entering into a contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties." Ross v. Farmers Ins.

2002Co . (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660 , appellee provided appellants notice of an underinsured motorist claim.

2003Pepper Pike v. Landskroner (1977), 53 Ohio App.2d 63 , 76 . {¶ 14} "For the purposes of determining the scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time of entering into a contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties." Ross v. Farmers Ins.

2002Pepper Pike v. Landskroner (1977), 53 Ohio App.2d 63 , 76 . {¶ 13} "For the purposes of determining the scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time of entering into a contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties." Ross v. Farmers Ins.

2002Moreover, "the insurer, being the one who selects the language in the contract, must be specific in its use; an exclusion from liability must be clear and exact in order to be given effect. * * * [Citations omitted.]" Id. {¶ 10} In this case, while one section of Boughan's auto insurance policy requires an insured to bring an underinsured motorist claim within one year of the accident or two years from the date the insured is made aware, another section of the policy advises the insured that Grange will not pay an underinsured's claim until other policies have been exhausted or there is a tent

1990Lane, supra, apparently involved an underinsured motorist claim under an uninsured policy provision.

1998Co. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 243 , 553 N.E.2d 658 , syllabus.

1998Co. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 243 , 553 N.E.2d 658 , syllabus.

2008Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. , 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105 , 1996-Ohio-336 . {¶ 11} In their sole assignment of error, the Aliceas argue Kathy Alicea's rejection of UM/UIM coverage is invalid because Allstate's offer of the coverage did not expressly state the $100,000/$300,000 UM/UIM coverage limits. {¶ 12} "For the purpose of determining the scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time of entering into a contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties." Smith v. Cincinnati Ins.

2008Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. , 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105 , 1996-Ohio-336 . {¶ 11} In their sole assignment of error, the Aliceas argue Kathy Alicea's rejection of UM/UIM coverage is invalid because Allstate's offer of the coverage did not expressly state the $100,000/$300,000 UM/UIM coverage limits. {¶ 12} "For the purpose of determining the scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time of entering into a contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties." Smith v. Cincinnati Ins.

2006Id., citing Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 367 , 369-370 , 1998-Ohio-389 , 696 N.E.2d 201 ; see, also, Civ.R. 56(C)." White v. Lawler, Cuyahoga App. No. 85199, 2005-Ohio-3835 , ¶ 5. {¶ 8} "For the purpose of determining the scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time of entering into a contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties." Ross v. Farmers Ins.

2006Id., citing Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 367 , 369-370 , 1998-Ohio-389 , 696 N.E.2d 201 ; see, also, Civ.R. 56(C)." White v. Lawler, Cuyahoga App. No. 85199, 2005-Ohio-3835 , ¶ 5. {¶ 8} "For the purpose of determining the scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time of entering into a contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties." Ross v. Farmers Ins.

2006Id., citing Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 367 , 369-370 , 1998-Ohio-389 , 696 N.E.2d 201 ; see, also, Civ.R. 56(C)." White v. Lawler, Cuyahoga App. No. 85199, 2005-Ohio-3835 , ¶ 5. {¶ 8} "For the purpose of determining the scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time of entering into a contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties." Ross v. Farmers Ins.

2006Wampler v. Higgins (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 111, 127 , 752 N.E.2d 962 ; Hillyer v. State Farm Mut.

2006Wampler v. Higgins (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 111, 127 , 752 N.E.2d 962 ; Hillyer v. State Farm Mut.

2005Zimmerman v. Tompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 447 , 449 . {¶ 12} "[F]or the purpose of determining the scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time of entering into a contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties." Ross v. Farmers Ins.

2005Engel v. Corrigan (1983), 12 Ohio App.3d 34 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 9} "[F]or the purpose of determining the scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time of entering into a contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties." Ross v. Farmers Ins.

2005Co. (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 208 , syllabus ("`Where provisions of a contract of insurance are reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation, they will be construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured.'"). 4 For the purpose of determining the scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time the parties entered into a contract for insurance controls the contractual rights and responsibility of the parties.

2004Co. of Am. (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 557 , 715 N.E.2d 1142 . {¶ 3} During the course of the litigation, the Parkses filed a motion for partial summary judgment against Wausau on the issue of whether they satisfied all the prerequisites for perfecting an underinsured-motorist claim against Wausau.

2004Co. of Am. (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 557 , 715 N.E.2d 1142 . {¶ 3} During the course of the litigation, the Parkses filed a motion for partial summary judgment against Wausau on the issue of whether they satisfied all the prerequisites for perfecting an underinsured-motorist claim against Wausau.

2002Id.

2002Co. (March 12, 2001) Stark App. No. 20000CA00130; Heil , supra. {¶ 12} Each of the courts mentioned above have determined that a contractual limit of time on an underinsured motorist claim must, at the least, commence at the time the insured is made aware that he is underinsured which is the date which he settles with the primary insurance company.

2002Relations Bd. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 181 , 183 . {¶ 7} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that "[f]or the purpose of determining the scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time of entering into a contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties." Ross v. Farmer's Ins.

2002Group of Cos. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 281 , syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that "[f]or the purpose of determining the scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim, the statutory law in effect at the time of entering into a contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties." The holding in Ross was largely based on the court's previous decision in Benson v. Rosler (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 41 , 44 , abrogated by Wolfe v. Wolfe (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 246 .

2002Thereafter, Progressive refused to pay underinsured motorist benefits to the Bogans for their damages in excess of the tortfeasor’s policy limit, contending that the Bogans had forfeited coverage by failing to meet their contractual obligations to exhaust the tortfeasor’s policy limits and to protect Progressive’s subrogation rights. {¶ 18} The majority of this court rejected Progressive’s failure-to-exhaust argument and held that “[a]n injured insured satisfies the ‘exhaustion’ requirement in the underinsured motorist provision of his insurance policy when he receives from the underinsured to

2002Thereafter, Progressive refused to pay underinsured motorist benefits to the Bogans for their damages in excess of the tortfeasor’s policy limit, contending that the Bogans had forfeited coverage by failing to meet their contractual obligations to exhaust the tortfeasor’s policy limits and to protect Progressive’s subrogation rights. {¶ 18} The majority of this court rejected Progressive’s failure-to-exhaust argument and held that “[a]n injured insured satisfies the ‘exhaustion’ requirement in the underinsured motorist provision of his insurance policy when he receives from the underinsured to

2002Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 159 , 161 , 532 N.E.2d 730 . {¶ 29} Gruelich did not notify Hartford of the 1986 accident or of the underinsured motorist claim until December 2000.

2002Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 159 , 161 , 532 N.E.2d 730 . {¶ 29} Gruelich did not notify Hartford of the 1986 accident or of the underinsured motorist claim until December 2000.

1999Co., 1999-Ohio-279 .] Motor vehicles—Insurance—Scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on authority of Ross v. Farmers Ins.

1999This means that under the McDonald v. Republic-Franklin Insurance Company [(1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 27 , 543 N.E.2d 456 ] case, you do not have to obtain the permission of Commercial Union Insurance Company to settle the claims.

1999This means that under the McDonald v. Republic-Franklin Insurance Company [(1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 27 , 543 N.E.2d 456 ] case, you do not have to obtain the permission of Commercial Union Insurance Company to settle the claims.

1998Co., 1998-Ohio-228 .] Motor vehicles—Insurance—Scope of coverage of an underinsured motorist claim—Statutory law in effect at time of entering into contract for automobile liability insurance controls the rights and duties of the contracting parties.