Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Jeff Arnold and I am Vice President-Risk Management for Baker Concrete Construction with corporate offices in Monroe, Ohio. Baker is a national construction company with a vehicle fleet in excess of 250 trucks throughout the country. I am also here on behalf of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, where I serve as Chairman of the Labor & Employment Committee.

I feel like I took a wrong turn to the grocery store when I talk about uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) coverage these days. I have read the Ponzer decision several times and, while not being an attorney, I can’t understand the logic that was applied. In any event, after Ponzer was decided, I started rejecting UM/UIM coverage on our vehicle policy. My belief was that this was the only way I could avoid frivolous litigation, additional liability exposure and increasing cost. Then comes the Ezawa decision, which expanded the scope of liability previously opened up by the Ponzer decision. I carried on business as usual for the next several years, feeling reassured that my decision to reject UM/UIM coverage avoided greater liability and cost for Baker.

That’s when my company was sideswiped by the Supreme Court a third time. The Linko case was decided, telling me that the rejections I previously signed on behalf of Baker affiliated companies weren’t valid. I understand the basics of contract law, and I was fully aware of the nature of the coverage and the liability exposure the coverage was intended to protect our companies against. The cost of the coverage didn’t matter because I knew it was going to cost more than I was willing to pay. As it turned out, the Supreme Court required that our insurance company provide Baker notice that it was charging a 25 percent premium increase for UM/UIM coverage so Baker could legally decline the coverage on behalf of its affiliated companies. In terms of the decision to decline coverage, the basis of Baker’s decision to decline was no different in any way either before or after the Linko decision. So despite this rather unnecessary paperwork, I felt rather secure in that I would only have the past two years to worry about my companies’ liability exposure since I rejected the coverage.

But there is another aspect to Linko. Wack! My two years of exposure has become 15 years.
Let me explain. I have received several letters from attorneys requesting to see my policies. One represents the daughter of one of our co-workers who was employed by us in 1991. Our co-worker did not drive a company vehicle, but did receive a monthly allowance for business use of his personal vehicle. He would have been covered under our non-owned or hired coverage while on company business. His daughter, on a weekend, was involved in a serious accident. The letter from her attorney explained that in light of the recent Linko decision, additional coverage might be available for her accident. I purchased a commercial vehicle policy to protect the assets of Baker Concrete, not to provide a benefit package for every co-workers relative.
To let decisions like this stand without correction is damaging to the businesses and economy of this State. I urge you to pass Senate Bill 97.