Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3937.18

For multiple claimants seeking underinsured-motorist coverage under the same policy, the amount available for payment is the amount actually paid under the liability policy, rather than its policy limit, when calculating available coverage.

Kuchmar v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., C-060866 (11-30-2007) · filed 2007-11-30(A)(2)

The court also noted that "it would appear that, in most cases, the application of the R.C. 3937.18 (A)(2) `amounts available for payment' language arises when both multiple parties and multiple policies are involved." ... "For these reasons, we are compelled by Webb to conclude that Nationwide owes the Kuchmars underinsured-motorist coverage and that the amount of available coverage is the difference between its underinsured limits and the amount actually paid by USAA."

Section 3937.18 requires an underinsurance claim to be paid and governs the amount of underinsurance coverage.

Snyder v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. · filed 1996-08-07

Insurance—Motor vehicles—Pursuant to former R.C. 3937.18, an underinsurance claim must be paid, when—Determining amount of underinsurance coverage to be paid. ... {¶ 1} As to Proposition of Law No. 1, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Cole v. Holland (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 220, 667 N.E.2d 353.

Former R.C. 3937.18(A)(1) treated a claimant as legally entitled to recover damages when the claimant could prove the elements necessary to recover damages from the uninsured motorist, even after settling for the tortfeasor's liability limits.

Hans v. Hartford Fire Insurance · filed 2007-12-28(A)(1)

The pre-H.B. No. 261 version of R.C. 3937.18(A)(1), applicable here, specifically provided that “a person is legally entitled to recover damages if he is able to prove the elements of his claim that are necessary to recover damages from the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle.” ... Based on the foregoing, we hold that Hans was legally entitled to recover damages form the tortfeasor and, thus, that he was entitled to pursue an uninsured- or underinsured-motorist claim under the Hartford policy.

An insured is legally entitled to recover uninsured motorist benefits only if the insured can prove the elements needed to recover damages from the uninsured driver.

Marcum v. Colonial Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, Unpublished Decision (8-19-2003) · filed 2003-08-19(A)(1)

Therefore, plaintiff cannot demonstrate any legal entitlement to recovery. See, also, former R.C. 3937.18(A)(1), which was in effect at the beginning of the policy period of Marcum's automobile insurance ("an insured is legally entitled to recover damages [under the uninsured motorist coverage] if the insured is able to prove the elements of the insured's claim that are necessary to recover damages from the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle").

Former section 3937.18(E)(2) treats a tortfeasor’s vehicle owned by, furnished to, or available for the regular use of a named insured or the insured’s family member as not uninsured or underinsured, and its application with (J)(1) does not create an unconstitutional household-status classification.

Burnett v. Motorists Mutual Insurance · filed 2008-06-17(E)(2) and (J)(1)

In light of the foregoing analysis, we answer the certified question in the negative. The application of former R.C. 3937.18(E)(2) does not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions and does not create an arbitrary and illogical classification based on household status that has a disparate and unfair effect by precluding coverage for injured persons who may not recover solely because they are related to and live in the household of the insured.

Section 3937.18(L)(1) does not make a commercial general liability policy a motor vehicle liability policy for UM/UIM purposes when the policy does not specifically identify any motor vehicles for coverage.

United Farm Family Mut. Ins. v. Pearce, 2-08-07 (10-20-2008) · filed 2008-10-20(L)(1)

This Court in Brookman held that the CGL policy in that case was not a "motor vehicle policy" under R.C. 3937.18 (L)(1) for purposes of plaintiff s UM/UIM claim, because the policy failed to specifically identify any motor vehicles to be covered under it. ... United Farm argues, and we agree, that Brookman's holding is, at least, persuasive here. ... Under these circumstances, the Shaners cannot extend the CGL policy's coverage to include Pearce's motor vehicle just as the plaintiffs in Brookman could not extend their employer's CGL policy to include motor vehicles.

Section 3937.18 allows a UM/UIM policy to exclude injuries sustained while an insured operates or occupies a regularly used, non-specified vehicle and permits the change at a policy renewal or new two-year guarantee period.

Smith v. Speakman, 08ap-211 (12-16-2008) · filed 2008-12-16(I)(1), (E)

R.C. 3937.18 permits an insurer to effectively limit UM/UIM coverage through a provision commonly known as the "regular use" exclusion. In particular, R.C. 3937.18 (I)(1) provides, as relevant here, that an insurance policy that includes UM/UIM coverage may include terms and conditions that preclude coverage for bodily injury or death suffered by an insured when the insured is "operating or occupying a motor vehicle owned by, furnished to, or available for the regular use of a named insured * * * if the motor vehicle is not specifically identified in the policy under which a claim is made." ... As noted previously, R.C. 3937.18 (E) specifically authorizes insurers to incorporate changes into an automobile liability policy at the time of a six-month renewal or at the beginning of a new two-year guarantee period. ... Accordingly, we find that State Farm properly endorsed appellants' policy to add the "regular use" exclusion in accordance with R.C. 3937.31 (A).

Former R.C. 3937.18(K)(3) treats a political subdivision as self-insured if it qualifies under R.C. Chapter 4509, even without a certificate of self-insurance.

Smith v. Matten, L-07-1408 (8-22-2008) · filed 2008-08-22(K)(3)

{¶ 4} Recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio in Rogers v. Dayton , 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336 , held, in its syllabus that "[A] political subdivision is self-insured for purposes of former R.C. 3937.18 (K)(3) if it qualifies as a self-insurer under R.C. Chapter 4509 , although it is not required to obtain a certificate of self-insurance." {¶ 5} On the above authority, appellant's sole assignment of error is found well-taken.

Section 3937.18(B)(3) requires independent corroborative evidence, beyond the insured's own testimony, when the identity of the uninsured motorist cannot be determined; the additional evidence need not be eyewitness testimony.

Mosley v. Personal Serv. Ins., 08ca779 (1-26-2009) · filed 2009-01-26(B)(3)

As a result, for an insured to receive benefits under an automobile insurance policy with uninsured motorist coverage when the driver that caused the accident is unknown, the insured must produce independent corroborative evidence to support her claim. The insured's testimony is not sufficient by itself to be successful. ... PSI, however, concedes that there is no requirement in its policy, R.C. 3937.18 , or Girgis that the "additional evidence" needed to support the insured's testimony be eyewitness testimony.

Section 3937.18(H) permits an insurance policy with UM/UIM coverage to require suit within three years after the accident.

Pottorf v. Sell · filed 2009-06-15(H)

Additionally, R.C. 3937.18(H) permits a policy of insurance that includes UM/UIM coverage to include a limitations period of three years from the date of the accident within which to bring suit under a UM/UIM provision. ... Moreover, the three year limitations period has been expressly endorsed by the Ohio General Assembly in enacting R.C. 3937.18(H).

Subsection (H) permits a UM/UIM policy to shorten the limitations period, but the shortened period is unenforceable unless the insurer informs an insured with a potential claim of the period.

Wilson v. Ohio Casualty Insurance · filed 2009-12-24(H)

Accordingly, we hold that where the insurer has been made aware that an insured has a potential claim under a policy providing UM/UIM coverage, the insurer must inform the insured of any applicable limitations period contained in the policy. The insurer’s duty may be fulfilled by providing the insured with a copy of the policy or by other means reasonably calculated to apprise the insured of his rights under the policy. Unless the insurer fulfills that duty, the contractual limitations period is unenforceable. We emphasize that our holding is limited to the specific factual situation presented in this case.

Section 3937.18(H) permits UM/UIM policies to require claims or suits within three years after the accident, or within one year after the liability insurer becomes subject to insolvency proceedings, whichever is later, so long as the insured has not prejudiced the insurer's subrogation rights.

Anand v. Jones · filed 2025-09-23(H)

As Barbee instructs, courts must enforce the plain terms of such a provision. The Erie endorsement unambiguously required that any UIM claim or suit be made within three years of the January 31, 2019, collision. ... Based upon the precedent set forth in Barbee and R.C. 3937.18(H), the three-year limitation is reasonable, conspicuous, and enforceable under the general principles governing contracts.

Section 3937.18 does not preclude a court from conducting a choice-of-law analysis when the insured vehicle is principally garaged in Ohio.

Barrera v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania · filed 2010-10-04(A)

Accordingly, although the vehicle in the case sub judice was principally garaged in Ohio, we do not find that R.C. 3937.18 precludes choice of law analysis, as that issue has been raised in this case.

Section 3937.18(C) addresses the limits of available UM/UIM coverage and does not determine whether a person qualifies as an insured under an insurance policy.

Johns v. Hopkins · filed 2013-05-23(C)

In fact, R.C. 3937.18(C) does not expand, or even touch upon, whether an individual person qualifies as “an insured” under an insurance policy. R.C. 3937.18(C) is solely directed to the issue of the limits of coverage available under the UM/UIM provisions in a policy.

Section 3937.18(C) addresses the limits of UM/UIM coverage available to an insured, but does not determine who qualifies as an insured under the policy.

Dennewitz v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. · filed 2025-03-03(C)

In fact, R.C. 3937.18(C) does not expand, or even touch upon, whether an individual person qualifies as “an insured” under an insurance policy. R.C. 3937.18(C) is solely directed to the issue of the limits of coverage available under the UM/UIM provisions in a policy.

Subsection (D) requires an insured seeking uninsured- or underinsured-motorist coverage to prove every element necessary to recover from the owner or operator of the uninsured or underinsured vehicle, including proximate causation.

Davie v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. · filed 2015-01-15(D)

R.C. 3937.18(D) states that an insured seeking to recover under uninsured motorists coverage must “prove all elements of the insured’s claim that are necessary to recover from the owner or operator of the uninsured or under insured motor vehicle.” Davie’s negligence claims thus required him to prove the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and that the breach proximately caused the injury or damage.

Section 3937.18(D) requires an insured seeking UM/UIM coverage to prove every claim element necessary to recover from the uninsured or underinsured motorist, including the motorist’s negligence and tortfeasor status.

Sullivan-White v. Aukland · filed 2023-01-18(D)

Upon review, in R.C. 3937.18(D), the phrase “an insured shall prove all elements of the insured’s claim” is immediately followed by “that are necessary to recover from the owner or operator of the uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle.” When the statute is read in its entirety, giving effect to all of the words and phrases, it is evident that appellant’s entitlement to UM coverage under her State Farm policy is dependent upon her proving the Auklands were negligent, that they are tortfeasors.

Subsection (D) requires an insured seeking uninsured-motorist coverage to prove every element needed to recover from the owner or operator of the uninsured or underinsured vehicle.

Nelson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. · filed 2023-06-15(D)

An insured seeking to recover under uninsured motorist coverage must “prove all elements of the insured’s claim that are necessary to recover from the owner or operator of the uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle.” R.C. 3937.18(D).

Section 3937.18(A) permits, but does not require, an insurer to include UM/UIM coverage, so such coverage does not arise by operation of law when the policy lacks a specific provision for it.

Gilkey v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. · filed 2016-11-01(A)

Nor could the coverage arise by operation of law. A 2001 amendment to R.C. 3937.18 “eliminated the mandatory offer requirements for UM/UIM coverage, and, consequently, the possibility that UM/UIM coverage could arise by operation of law.” See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grace, 123 Ohio St.3d 471, 2009-Ohio-5934, 918 N.E.2d 135, ¶ 23, citing the amended version of R.C. 3937.18(A) (the insurer “may, but is not required to,” include UM/UIM coverage); S.B. 97, Sections 3(B)(1), (2), and (4), 149 Ohio Laws, Part I, 779, 788. Therefore, as Gilkey concedes, the trial court could not hold that UM/UIM coverage arose by operation of law in the absence of a specific provision for it in the farm umbrella policy.

The statute treats an unidentified vehicle owner or operator as an uninsured motorist when independent corroborating evidence shows that the unidentified operator proximately caused the injury.

Barnett v. Johnson · filed 2024-08-27(B)(1)(c)

Under Ohio law, the definition of uninsured motorist includes an owner or operator of a motor vehicle whose identity cannot be determined, when there is independent corroborative evidence to prove that an injury was proximately caused by the unidentified operator. R.C. 3937.18(B)(1)(c).

Section 3937.18(A)(1) provides uninsured-motorist coverage for damages recoverable from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles; vicariously liable nonmotorists do not qualify.

Lehrner v. Safeco Insurance/American States Insurance · filed 2007-02-23(A)(1)

But the Herberts neither owned nor operated the car involved in the accident. Although they were found liable on theories of respondeat superior and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, they were not motorists at all. As a result, they do not qualify as owners or operators of an uninsured motor vehicle for purposes of the Lehrners’ obtaining uninsured-motorist coverage from Safeco.