• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

OHIO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

What kind of recourse do i have when i believe my insurance agent mislead me about state law to get me to add coverage i never needed or wanted?

My agent(s) told me i needed FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE (LAYOVER COVERAGE) to meet Ohio state law, OHIO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW. Which is untrue as the state law mentions not once requiring FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE. We maintained (LAYOVER COVERAGE - FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE) only because the agent implied it was required by state law. I contacted BMV of Ohio and was told if i was randomly selected to prove insurance coverage per OHIO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW, that FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE would NOT meet the state law requirements and could be subject to suspension(s) and fines and fees etc.
 


Just Blue

Senior Member
What kind of recourse do i have when i believe my insurance agent mislead me about state law to get me to add coverage i never needed or wanted?

My agent(s) told me i needed FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE (LAYOVER COVERAGE) to meet Ohio state law, OHIO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW. Which is untrue as the state law mentions not once requiring FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE. We maintained (LAYOVER COVERAGE - FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE) only because the agent implied it was required by state law. I contacted BMV of Ohio and was told if i was randomly selected to prove insurance coverage per OHIO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW, that FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE would NOT meet the state law requirements and could be subject to suspension(s) and fines and fees etc.
What type of business is this?
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
What kind of recourse do i have when i believe my insurance agent mislead me about state law to get me to add coverage i never needed or wanted?

My agent(s) told me i needed FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE (LAYOVER COVERAGE) to meet Ohio state law, OHIO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW. Which is untrue as the state law mentions not once requiring FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE. We maintained (LAYOVER COVERAGE - FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE) only because the agent implied it was required by state law. I contacted BMV of Ohio and was told if i was randomly selected to prove insurance coverage per OHIO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW, that FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE would NOT meet the state law requirements and could be subject to suspension(s) and fines and fees etc.
I am a little confused. Did the agent tell you that you needed fire and theft coverage on top of liability coverage? Or did the agent tell you that you only needed fire and theft coverage? You would not be subject to suspensions and fine etc if the fire and theft coverage was on top of the required liability coverage.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
Ohio (as with other states) financial responsibility is all about paying damages you cause to others (LIABILITY INSURANCE, or an approved substitute) not to your own car. As Just Blue is implying, if your care is financed or leased, your lender will likely also require full coverage for damage to the car (to protect their interest) outside of the state law.
 
No these are cars my family own.

These cars are not registered and not road worthy yet. We restore older cars and it takes years sometimes to get them back on the road.

The agents told us we had to keep layover (fire and theft coverage) regardless if these cars where gonna be registered and road worthy months or years later.

That is the issue i found and want to verify. The Ohio Financial Responsibility Law does not require fire and theft coverage. But the agents told us it was required by state law. So without wanting fire and theft coverage we paid for it cause the agents told us the law required it. Or we faced potential suspensions fines and fees etc.

Still going through our records but i see in the last 2 years we paid over 1,000 dollars for coverage we never wanted or asked for but was made to believe it was required by state law so we did pay for the coverage.

But the agents bold face lied to us cause the law never required fire and theft insurance.
 
Last edited:

LdiJ

Senior Member
No these are cars my family own.
In every state in this country you are required to have liability insurance (insurance that protects other parties when you are responsible for accidents). Some states also require some other types of insurance on top of liability, and liability limits can vary by state.

So, that is why the question arises as to whether the fire and theft insurance is on top of liability, or if that is all that you have. If that is all that you have, then of course the insurance agent did you wrong...and that is why the BMV would tell you that there would be suspensions/fines etc. However, its highly unlikely that fire and theft is all that you have. Its far more likely that the agent upsold you the fire and theft insurance on top of what the state requires for liability etc.
 
In every state in this country you are required to have liability insurance (insurance that protects other parties when you are responsible for accidents). Some states also require some other types of insurance on top of liability, and liability limits can vary by state.

So, that is why the question arises as to whether the fire and theft insurance is on top of liability, or if that is all that you have. If that is all that you have, then of course the insurance agent did you wrong...and that is why the BMV would tell you that there would be suspensions/fines etc. However, its highly unlikely that fire and theft is all that you have. Its far more likely that the agent upsold you the fire and theft insurance on top of what the state requires for liability etc.

This was only fire and theft and nothing more.
 
So since my agent mislead us to believe the law required us to carry fire and theft protection to meet the requirements of law and was intentionally misleading just to get more money from us,

Is there any kind of recourse to recoup our money and to prevent this from happening to others who use this agency?
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
In every state in this country you are required to have liability insurance (insurance that protects other parties when you are responsible for accidents).
Technically, not correct. Everyone is required to maintain some form of financial responsibility, which is most commonly liability insurance, but may take other forms.

Some states also require some other types of insurance on top of liability...
Out of genuine curiosity, what other type of insurance and what state(s)? (Not being snarky, truly curious.)

So, that is why the question arises as to whether the fire and theft insurance is on top of liability, or if that is all that you have. If that is all that you have, then of course the insurance agent did you wrong...and that is why the BMV would tell you that there would be suspensions/fines etc. However, its highly unlikely that fire and theft is all that you have. Its far more likely that the agent upsold you the fire and theft insurance on top of what the state requires for liability etc.
Since these are unregistered and inoperable vehicles, it's entirely possible that the OP purchased insurance that didn't include liability. It would be in place to protect the personal property (the vehicle) against the named losses while they are being restored.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top