Case Title: Kemper v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co.

Citation: 2002-Ohio-7101

Docket Number: 20011709

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-12-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Kemper v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 162, 2002-Ohio-7101.] 
 
 
KEMPER ET AL. v. MICHIGAN MILLERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. 
[Cite as Kemper v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 162, 2002-
Ohio-7101.] 
Insurance — Automobile liability — UM/UIM coverage — Applicability of 
Linko requirements — Declination of UM/UIM coverage effected, when. 
(No. 2001-1709 — Submitted September 17, 2002 — Decided December 24, 
2002.) 
ON ORDER from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, 
Western Division, Certifying Questions of State Law, No. 3:00CV07799. 
__________________ 
{¶1} 
The following questions have been certified to us by the United 
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, pursuant 
to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII: 
{¶2} 
“(1) Are the requirements of Linko v. Indemnity Ins. Co. [2000], 90 
Ohio St.3d [445, 739 N.E.2d 338], relative to an offer of UM/UIM coverage, 
applicable to a policy of insurance written after enactment of [1997] HB 261 and 
before [2001] SB 97? 
{¶3} 
“(2) If the Linko requirements are applicable, does, under [1997] 
HB 261, a signed rejection act as an effective declination of UM/UIM coverage, 
where there is no other evidence, oral or documentary, of an offer of coverage?” 
{¶4} 
We answer certified question No. 1 in the affirmative and certified 
question No. 2 in the negative. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissent. 
 
COOK, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶5} 
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the 
requirements of Linko v. Indemn. Ins. Co. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 445, 739 N.E.2d 
338, are applicable to an insurance policy written after the enactment of 1997 
H.B. 261 and before 2001 S.B. 97.  As a preliminary matter, I note that although I 
dissented in part in Linko, I acknowledge its holding as controlling precedent for 
insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of H.B. 261.  Nevertheless, R.C. 
3937.18, as amended by H.B. 261, sets forth new requirements for a valid offer 
and rejection of UM/UIM motorist coverage. Accordingly, we are not bound by 
Linko in determining whether extrastatutory requirements should be imposed on 
insurers after the effective date of H.B. 261. 
{¶6} 
By its holding today, the majority requires insurers to “inform the 
insured of the availability of UM/UIM coverage, set forth the premium for 
UM/UIM coverage, include a brief description of the coverage, and expressly 
state the UM/UIM coverage limits in its offer” even after the adoption of H.B. 
261.  Linko, 90 Ohio St.3d at 447-448, 739 N.E.2d 338. The majority not only 
imposes these requirements without any statutory basis or legal analysis, but it 
also ignores the fact that R.C. 3937.18, as amended by H.B. 261, unlike the 
former statute, speaks directly to the requirements that are necessary for a valid 
offer and rejection of UM/UIM coverage.  In view of these amendments and the 
absence of any statutory support to impose the Linko requirements, I would 
conclude that such requirements are inapplicable to insurance policies written 
after the effective date of H.B. 261. 
{¶7} 
Because I would answer certified question No. 1 in the negative, I 
would conclude that question No. 2 is moot. 
{¶8} 
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2002 
3 
Elk & Elk Co., L.P.A., David J. Elk and Todd O. Rosenberg, for 
petitioners Sherrie L. Kemper et al. 
Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman, Alton L. Stephens, James T. 
Tyminski Jr. and D. John Travis, for respondent Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co. 
Gallagher, Gams, Pryor, Tallan & Littrell, L.L.P., and James R. Gallagher, 
for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys. 
Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder & Bringardner Co., L.P.A., Michael L. Close 
and Samuel M. Pipino, for amicus curiae American International Companies. 
__________________