Purvis v. Cincinnati Insurance

Purvis v. Cincinnati Ins., 98 Ohio St. 3d 1494 (Ohio 2003) · Supreme Court of Ohio · March 19, 2003

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court summarily reversed the certified-conflict case on the authority of Kemper v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Co. The concurrence explains that Kemper governs the requirements for offering and rejecting uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage under R.C. 3937.18 as amended by H.B. 261, while noting the concurring justice's disagreement with the decision not to reconsider Kemper.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Chief Justice Moyer; Justice Resnick; Justice F.E. Sweeney; Justice Pfeifer; Justice Lundberg Stratton; Justice O'Connor
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
March 19, 2003
Procedural posture
The Supreme Court of Ohio decided the case upon certification of a conflict by the Court of Appeals for Greene County and summarily reversed the appellate judgment.
Standard of review
Summary disposition based on controlling precedent; the court summarily reversed on the authority of Kemper.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Supreme Court decision; the per curiam disposition summarily applies controlling precedent.
Parties
Purvis v. Cincinnati Insurance
Disposition
reversed

Topics

uninsured motoriststatutory interpretationappellate procedureinsurance coverage

Practice areas

insuranceuninsured motoristappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Kemper v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Co. controlled the legal issue concerning the offer and rejection of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage under R.C. 3937.18 as amended by 1997 H.B. 261.
  2. Whether the judgment of the Greene County Court of Appeals should be summarily reversed under Kemper.

Holdings

  1. Kemper controlled the issue, and summary reversal of the Greene County Court of Appeals judgment was appropriate.

Key quotations

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be reversed on the authority of Kemper v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 162, 2002-Ohio-7101, 781 N.E.2d 196. (98 Ohio St. 3d 1494)
The majority not only imposes [the Linko] 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. (at ¶ 6)
where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it is the duty of the court to enforce the statute as written, making neither additions to the statute nor subtractions therefrom. (at ¶ 14)

Factual background

The dispute concerned the validity of an offer and rejection of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage under Ohio law. The relevant insurance policy was discussed in the context of policies written after enactment of 1997 H.B. 261 and before 2001 S.B. 97. The controlling legal question was whether the requirements previously articulated in Linko applied and whether a signed rejection alone could effectively decline UM/UIM coverage.

Procedural history

The case arose from Greene Appellate Case No. 2001-CA-104, reported as 2002-Ohio-1803. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the matter on certification of a conflict and, without oral argument, reversed on the authority of Kemper v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Co.

Remand instructions

The court ordered that a mandate be sent to the Court of Appeals for Greene County to carry the judgment into execution.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…