Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Auto Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsors propose mandating uninsured motorist coverage in Ohio auto policies
Summary
House Bill 595 would require uninsured motorist coverage be included in all motor vehicle liability policies in Ohio (with discussion of opt-out, enforcement and cost impacts); sponsors cited Ohio and national uninsured-driver estimates and said the change protects victims and reduces public assistance costs.
Representatives Mohammed and Williams presented House Bill 595 to the House Insurance Committee, proposing that all motor vehicle insurance policies include uninsured motorist coverage by default to protect victims of crashes caused by uninsured drivers.
Representative Mohammed said the bill amends "section 39 37.18 of the revised code" to require uninsured motorist coverage in all policies, arguing the measure would protect Ohioans from medical bills, lost wages and repair costs when the at-fault driver lacks insurance. He cited national and state estimates, saying national figures indicate roughly one in eight drivers is uninsured and that in Ohio the figure is closer to one in five.
Representative Williams described his own experience as a plaintiff's attorney who was injured in a crash and later discovered his policy lacked uninsured motorist coverage. "I walked away, still injured, settling my claim, 0 in my pocket," Williams said, describing the risk that medical and recovery costs can leave injured people and families on public assistance.
Committee members asked how many insured drivers already carry uninsured motorist coverage and what the cost impact would be. Sponsors said they did not have an exact statewide figure on hand but gave examples from consumer apps and carriers indicating the incremental cost can be modest (examples cited in testimony ranged from about $11 to $20 per month for adding uninsured motorist coverage on some policies). Mohammed and Williams proposed starting from a mandate to initiate committee discussion and then consider whether to require inclusion with a clear opt-out disclosure so consumers make informed choices.
Members raised broader policy questions about affordability and enforcement. Representative Daniels and others suggested considering raising the state's minimum liability limits (currently cited at $25,000 in testimony) and using licensing or registration checks to confirm proof of coverage; sponsors said they are working on separate proposals to raise minimums and discussed S.R.22-style enforcement and annual proof-of-insurance mechanisms as options.
The committee concluded the first hearing on HB 595 after extended Q&A. Sponsors said they would provide additional data on current coverage rates and noted there are ongoing discussions about opt-out language, enforcement mechanisms, and complementary bills addressing liability minimums.
