I was thinking about how we could be governed by Savoie and not by S.B. 20. The theory that we developed was to look at the date of the contract, not the date of the accident. This makes a great deal of sense because, if you look at Ohio constitutional law, there is a provision stating that the Legislature cannot impair rights of existing contracts. The theory was that if you had a new statutory change, that change could not affect the rights of existing contracts. And the theory behind that is that once you make your contracts, you're doing it based on certain assumptions.
Insurance companies price their product based on the law that's out there.
And theoretically individuals, or more likely insurance agents, sell the policies based on what you'd get under the current law. And you would be paying a premium for something you're clearly not getting. That's the simple explanation for why you have to look at the date of the contract, and not the date of the accident. It was another case where I was amicus counsel, and that was Hillyer v. Great American Ins. This was an interesting application because it was a liability policy and not a UM policy.