Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 3901
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3901.48 (2026)

Disclosing work papers resulting from conduct of audit

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
August 21, 2006
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 268 - 126th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) The original work papers of a certified public accountant performing an audit of an insurance company or health insuring corporation doing business in this state that is required by rule or by any section of the Revised Code to file an audited financial report with the superintendent of insurance shall remain the property of the certified public accountant. Any copies of these work papers voluntarily given to the superintendent shall be the property of the superintendent. The original work papers or any copies of them, whether in possession of the certified public accountant or the department of insurance, are confidential and privileged and are not a public record as defined in section 149.43 of the Revised Code. The original work papers and any copies of them are not subject to subpoena and shall not be made public by the superintendent or any other person.

(B) The work papers of the superintendent or of the person appointed by the superintendent, resulting from the conduct of an examination made pursuant to section 3901.07 of the Revised Code or from the conduct of a financial analysis of any entity subject to examination by the superintendent, including but not limited to any insurance company, health insuring corporation, fraternal benefit society, or multiple employer welfare arrangement, are confidential and privileged and are not a public record as defined in section 149.43 of the Revised Code. The original work papers and any copies of them are not subject to subpoena and shall not be made public by the superintendent or any other person.

(C) The work papers of the superintendent or of any person appointed by the superintendent, resulting from the conduct of a performance regulation examination made pursuant to authority granted under section 3901.011 of the Revised Code or from the conduct of a market analysis or investigation of any entity subject to examination by the superintendent, including, but not limited to, any insurance company, health insuring corporation, fraternal benefit society, or multiple employer welfare arrangement, are confidential and privileged and are not a public record as defined in section 149.43 of the Revised Code. The original work papers and any copies of them are not subject to subpoena and shall not be made public by the superintendent or any other person.

(D) Notwithstanding divisions (A), (B), and (C) of this section, the superintendent may do either of the following:

(1) Share work papers that are the subject of this section with the chief deputy rehabilitator, the chief deputy liquidator, other deputy rehabilitators and liquidators, and any other person employed by, or acting on behalf of, the superintendent pursuant to Chapter 3901. or 3903. of the Revised Code, with other local, state, federal, and international regulatory and law enforcement agencies, with local, state, and federal prosecutors, with the national association of insurance commissioners and its affiliates and subsidiaries, and with the interstate insurance product regulation commission described in section 3915.16 of the Revised Code, provided that the recipient agrees to maintain the confidential or privileged status of the confidential or privileged work paper and has authority to do so;

(2) Disclose work papers that are the subject of this section in the furtherance of any regulatory or legal action brought by or on behalf of the superintendent or the state, resulting from the exercise of the superintendent's official duties.

(E) Notwithstanding divisions (A), (B), (C), and (D) of this section, the superintendent may authorize the national association of insurance commissioners and its affiliates and subsidiaries or the interstate insurance product regulation commission described in section 3915.16 of the Revised Code by agreement to share confidential or privileged work papers received pursuant to division (D)(1) of this section with local, state, federal, and international regulatory and law enforcement agencies and with local, state, and federal prosecutors, provided that the recipient agrees to maintain the confidential or privileged status of the confidential or privileged work paper and has authority to do so.

(F) Notwithstanding divisions (A), (B), (C), and (D) of this section, the chief deputy rehabilitator, the chief deputy liquidator, and other deputy rehabilitators and liquidators may disclose work papers that are the subject of this section in the furtherance of any regulatory or legal action brought by or on behalf of the superintendent, the rehabilitator, the liquidator, or the state resulting from the exercise of the superintendent's official duties in any capacity.

(G) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the superintendent from receiving work papers in accordance with section 3901.045 of the Revised Code.

(H) The superintendent may enter into agreements governing the sharing and use of work papers consistent with the requirements of this section.

(I)(1) No waiver of any applicable privilege or claim of confidentiality in the work papers, or copies thereof, that are the subject of this section shall occur as a result of sharing or receiving work papers as authorized in divisions (D)(1), (E), and (G) of this section.

(2) The disclosure of work papers in connection with a regulatory or legal action pursuant to divisions (D)(2) and (F) of this section does not prohibit an insurer or any other person from taking steps to limit the dissemination of the work papers to persons not involved in or the subject of the regulatory or legal action on the basis of any recognized privilege arising under any other section of the Revised Code or the common law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1997–2002 · leading case: State ex rel. Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins., 687 N.E.2d 661 (Ohio 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins., 687 N.E.2d 661 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 17× “We conclude that the documents are not confidential work papers under R.C. 3901.48. Further, we have conducted an in camera review and have determined that some documents, or portions thereof, constitute trade secrets pursuant to R.”
State ex rel. The Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins., 1997 Ohio 75 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 23× “Written requests for documents and documents submitted by the insurers in accordance with this process are known as “work papers” and are protected from public disclosure under R.C. 3901.48. {¶ 3} In March 1996, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Ohio (“Blue Cross”) announced a sale of a…”
Covington v. Saffold, 779 N.E.2d 838 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 10× “However, in a nunc pro tunc entry, the trial court held that an in-camera inspection of work papers prepared by ODI’s own examiners resulted in a finding that such papers were protected pursuant to R.C. 3901.48 and thus not discoverable. {¶ 4} Appellants appeal from this…”
Covington v. MetroHealth Sys., 782 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “{¶ 11} “Third Assignment of Error: The trial court erred by ignoring the plain language of R.C. 3901.48 and concluding that examination work papers are subject to release by subpoena.”
State ex rel. Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dep't of Ins., 682 N.E.2d 999 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 2× “In doing so, I submit, the respondents are confronted with the dilemma of either violating R.C. 3901.48 and complying with this court’s order, or complying with the statute and, in a piecemeal fashion, providing the material that might or could be covered by the court’s order.”
State ex rel. Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dep't of Ins., 682 N.E.2d 1000 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 2× “In doing so, I submit, the respondents are confronted with the dilemma of either violating R.C. 3901.48 and complying with this court’s order, or complying with the statute and, in a piecemeal fashion, providing the material that might or could be covered by the court’s order.”
State ex rel. The Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins., 1997 Ohio 74 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 2× “In doing so, I submit, the respondents are confronted with the dilemma of either violating R.C. 3901.48 and complying with this court’s order, or complying with the statute and, in a piecemeal fashion, providing the material that might or could be covered by the court’s order.”
State ex rel. The Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins., 1997 Ohio 73 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 2× “In doing so, I submit, the respondents are confronted with the dilemma of either violating R.C. 3901.48 and 2 January Term, 1997 complying with this court’s order, or complying with the statute and, in a piecemeal fashion, providing the material that might or could be covered by…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3901.48(A) — 1 case
Covington v. Saffold, 779 N.E.2d 838 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “However, in a nunc pro tunc entry, the trial court held that an in-camera inspection of work papers prepared by ODI’s own examiners resulted in a finding that such papers were protected pursuant to R.C. 3901.48 and thus not discoverable. {¶ 4} Appellants appeal from this…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3901.48(B) — 8 cases
State ex rel. Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins., 687 N.E.2d 661 (Ohio 1997). “We conclude that the documents are not confidential work papers under R.C. 3901.48. Further, we have conducted an in camera review and have determined that some documents, or portions thereof, constitute trade secrets pursuant to R.”
Covington v. Saffold, 779 N.E.2d 838 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “However, in a nunc pro tunc entry, the trial court held that an in-camera inspection of work papers prepared by ODI’s own examiners resulted in a finding that such papers were protected pursuant to R.C. 3901.48 and thus not discoverable. {¶ 4} Appellants appeal from this…”
Covington v. MetroHealth Sys., 782 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “{¶ 11} “Third Assignment of Error: The trial court erred by ignoring the plain language of R.C. 3901.48 and concluding that examination work papers are subject to release by subpoena.”
State ex rel. The Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins., 1997 Ohio 75 (Ohio 1997). “Written requests for documents and documents submitted by the insurers in accordance with this process are known as “work papers” and are protected from public disclosure under R.C. 3901.48. {¶ 3} In March 1996, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Ohio (“Blue Cross”) announced a sale of a…”
State ex rel. Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dep't of Ins., 682 N.E.2d 999 (Ohio 1997). “In doing so, I submit, the respondents are confronted with the dilemma of either violating R.C. 3901.48 and complying with this court’s order, or complying with the statute and, in a piecemeal fashion, providing the material that might or could be covered by the court’s order.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3901.48(C) — 1 case
Covington v. Saffold, 779 N.E.2d 838 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “However, in a nunc pro tunc entry, the trial court held that an in-camera inspection of work papers prepared by ODI’s own examiners resulted in a finding that such papers were protected pursuant to R.C. 3901.48 and thus not discoverable. {¶ 4} Appellants appeal from this…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.