Court Opinion

ID: 9801127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:45:54.793399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:02.966699
License: Public Domain

{¶ 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.