PLOhiomedium
What was the practical effect of the 2001 legislative amendments to R.C. 3937.18 on the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mutual?
ACodified Scott-Pontzer's broad reading of 'you' so employees remain automatically entitled to UM/UIM coverage under the employer's commercial auto policy regardless of vehicle use at the time of loss
BLeft Scott-Pontzer untouched, so the decision remains controlling law governing employee UM/UIM claims under employer commercial auto policies
CExpanded Scott-Pontzer to apply broadly to personal auto policies, extending automatic employee UM/UIM coverage beyond commercial policies
Superseded Scott-Pontzer by narrowing the definition of 'insured' so employees are not automatically UM/UIM insureds under their employer's commercial auto policy
Why this is the answer
In Scott-Pontzer (1999), the Ohio Supreme Court read 'you' in a commercial auto policy broadly so any employee of the corporate named insured could claim UM/UIM benefits even off the job. The 2001 legislature expressly narrowed R.C. 3937.18 to limit insureds to the named insured and certain household and occupant categories, superseding the case.
Studying for the Ohio Personal Lines exam?
This question comes from our PL bank. Take a free practice test — no signup.