Please click the heading "Ohio Insurance" above to refresh this page and see latest posts.
My photo
Cleveland, Ohio, United States
Currently an attorney and insurance industry professional. Mr. Stoll is a commercial lawyer, arbitrator and mediator who also serves as insurance coverage counsel and advisor to numerous businesses throughout the country. He is also a licensed insurance agent/broker.

March 20, 2012

COURT OF APPEALS - CANCELLATION / NOTICE / REQUIREMENTS

Black v. Ryan (11th Dist., 3-5-12), 2012-Ohio-866.

CANCELLATION, O.R.C. 3937.33, NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDER, INTERPRETATION OF OHIO CANCELLATION NOTICE REQUIREMENTS   
     
The Court discussed at length which insured(s) was entitled to receive notice of  cancellation  pursuant to Ohio Revised Code  Sec. 3937.33.  The policyholder argued that the insurer was required to provide notice not only to the "Named Insured," but  also, to each "Listed Insured"  or "Additional Insured Driver."  

The Court ruled that O.R.C. 3937.33 requires that the insurer is only required to provide notice of cancellation to the "Named Insured."  The Court stated three reasons  for its decision.
     
First, the Court interpreted the language of O.R.C. 3937.33  and found that it supported a finding that only the policyholder (i.e. "Named Insured") must receive notice.  Second, the Court determined that the other additional insured under the policy was a minor residing in  the "Named Insured's" household and was not a person intended to receive notice of cancellation.  Third, The Court held that the provisions of O.R.C. 3937.33 were meant to protect insureds against ineffective notice.  Since the only party involved in the accident was the "Named Insured" the intent of the statute had been met and the notice was effective. READ THE CASE 

Questioning your insurance policy cancellation?  Contact to discuss.

No comments: