PLOhiohard
How did the 2001 amendments to R.C. 3937.18 respond to Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (1999)?
AThey expanded the definition of insured to include all employees of a corporate named insured, regardless of whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident
BThey abolished UM/UIM coverage in Ohio entirely
CThey required insurers to stack UM/UIM across all corporate vehicles
They narrowed the definition of insured and authorized policy language excluding employees acting outside the scope of employment from corporate UM/UIM
Why this is the answer
Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mutual (1999) had read 'you' in a commercial auto policy to include every employee of the corporate named insured, vastly expanding UM/UIM exposure. The 2001 amendments to R.C. 3937.18 superseded that result by narrowing the statutory definition of insured and authorizing policy language limiting coverage to scope-of-employment use.
Studying for the Ohio Personal Lines exam?
This question comes from our PL bank. Take a free practice test — no signup.