Kemper v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins.

93 Ohio St. 3d 1317
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Kemper v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins.. Read the opinion of the Court — 94 Ohio St. 3d 1435
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 21, 2001·No. 01-1709·Published

Opinion

Certified State Law Question, No. 300CV07799. On review of preliminary memoranda. The certified questions are as follows:

“1. Are the requirements of Linko v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 90 Ohio St.3d 565 (2000), relative to an offer of UM/UIM coverage, applicable to a policy of insurance written after enactment of HB 261 and before SB 97?

“2. If the Linko requirements are applicable, does, under 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?”

The court declines to answer the certified questions, and this cause is dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kemper v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins., 93 Ohio St. 3d 1317 (Ohio 2001).

93 Ohio St. 3d 1317 (Kemper v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision
740 N.E.2d 276 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2001)