PLOhiohard
Under Linko v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America (1999), what must an Ohio auto insurer demonstrate to enforce a named insured's rejection of UM/UIM coverage at less than the BI liability limits?
AThat the named insured paid an additional premium for the rejection
BThat the named insured orally acknowledged the offer at policy inception and confirmed it during a recorded telephone interview with the insurer's agent
CThat the rejection was filed with the Ohio Department of Insurance prior to issuance
That the insurer made a meaningful written offer disclosing the premium and available limits, and that the insured signed a written rejection
Why this is the answer
In Linko, the Ohio Supreme Court held that absent a meaningful written offer and a written rejection, UM/UIM is imposed by operation of law at the policy's BI liability limits. The offer must disclose the premium, available limits, and a brief description of the coverage so the insured can make an informed choice.
Studying for the Ohio Personal Lines exam?
This question comes from our PL bank. Take a free practice test — no signup.