Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Tony Fiore and I am the director of labor and human resources policy for the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of the nearly 5,000 members of the Ohio Chamber, I am here today to express our strong support for SB 97, the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Availability Act of 2001, sponsored by Senator Scott Nein.

Ohio’s reputation for having a healthy, available and affordable insurance marketplace has been greatly undermined by these Ohio Supreme Court decisions. Recent studies show that between 1994 and 1998 Ohio’s liability insurance premiums rose 10.1% compared to the national average of 1.4%. And the worst indication of the havoc these decisions will wreak on the insurance marketplace is yet to come. This important measure creates a common sense remedy to a pending insurance crisis by clarifying the circumstances under which insurers offer uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage to Ohio businesses.

Cincinnati Financial Corp., the largest issuer of commercial auto policies in Ohio already has paid over $40 million to cover claims allowed by these Court rulings. The company recently estimated the rulings will cost up to $100 million in unexpected claims. In total these decisions could result in insurers paying out more than $1.5 billion, driving premium increases for Ohio businesses through the roof. Many companies have already received renewal notices with 50 to 100 percent increases in the cost of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

As you have heard there are insurance companies that have decided not to underwrite uninsured/underinsured motorist policies in Ohio because of these adverse Supreme Court decisions. Not only are companies starting to leave Ohio’s insurance market, the companies who stay are having to increase their premiums, not for predicting direct market fluctuations, but to cover any unexpected future expansions of coverage by the Supreme Court. This situation sends an unmistakably negative message about Ohio’s business climate, a message that is not good for either employers and employees. This is because employers will choose not to provide UM/UIM coverage at all if the Supreme Court continues to expand the scope of coverage beyond what Ohio businesses believed they had purchased.

I now would like to introduce Jeff Arnold, the Vice President of Risk Management for Baker Concrete in Monroe, Ohio and who also serves as the chairman of our Labor & Employment Committee. He will testify as to how these adverse Supreme Court decisions are directly impacting his company.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee thank you for this opportunity to provide proponent testimony on SB 97 and if you don’t mind Mr. Chairman, Mr. Arnold and I and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have at the conclusion of his testimony.