• 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.

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
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?
Prove it...
 


Prove it...
Well i have no proof, they told me verbally that i must maintain (fire and theft) coverage to meet the laws requirements cause it was over the phone or verbally in person. I did read about my state law for wiretapping and my state has a "One Party Consent" and i can try to get a recording of them lying to me but that is very hard to do.

As far as proving i had only Fire and theft coverage for these cars, I can prove that i have all the paperwork showing the 4 cars in question never had liability coverage, just Fire and Theft. They also made us sign a paper saying we dont want Fire and Theft coverage anymore and that NOW (without Fire and Theft coverage) we are subject to failing to meet the Ohio laws requirements.

We never asked for or wanted Fire or Theft coverage. The agents told us the law required it. Which as of a few days ago when i read the law, Fire and Theft would have never met the Ohio Financial Responsibility Law.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
i can show you a copy of my insurance policy clearly showing these 4 cars in question never had liability coverage if that is what your asking for.
I believe you...what you have to prove is that you were specifically informed that you MUST have that insurance.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
Technically, not correct. Everyone is required to maintain some form of financial responsibility, which is most commonly liability insurance, but may take other forms.
In fact, Ohio is indeed one of those states that allows alternative financial responsibility demonstration (bond or proof of deposit of sufficient money to meet the $50,000 limit, or if you are large enough, self-insurance).[/QUOTE]
 
https://i.ibb.co/W0Q92Zg/proof-they-implied-fire-and-theft-met-ohio-law-requirements.jpg"

my camera sucks this is about as good a pic i can get and my scanner is on the fritz. The pic isnt great so im gonna type out exactly what is states.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF CHANGE: 10/30/19 POLICY:

DESCRIPTION: POLICY CHANGES

Effective 10/30/19:

1. Delete 1965 For Mustang - vehicle not running - vehicle not sold - by this vehicle being removed from the policy there will be no coverage for fire and theft.

2. Delete 1965 Chev Nova - vehicle not running - vehicle not sold - by this vehicle being removed from the policy there will be no coverage for fire and theft.

3. Delete 1993 GMC Sonoma - vehicle not running - vehicle not sold - by this vehicle being removed from the policy there will be no coverage for fire and theft.



McCutcheon Insurance agency, has discussed with the insured the Ohio's Financial Responsibility Law. By removing this auto, our insurance agency cannot verify auto insurance if the BMV mails out a Random Selection Letter. The BMV randomly selects 5,400 registered vehicles per week to provide proof of insurance for a selected date. Letters notifying the owner of the random selection are mailed to the address on file for the owner. A random selection suspension occurs if a vehicle owner fails to provide proof of insurance.
 
Last edited:

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
It's very blurry, but that letter does not say what you think it says. It is simply advising you that the agency has discussed the financial responsibility law and cannot verify insurance if asked by the BMV. It is boilerplate language that is likely included when any vehicle is removed. It does not imply that you were previously meeting the financial responsibility requirments.
 
It's very blurry, but that letter does not say what you think it says. It is simply advising you that the agency has discussed the financial responsibility law and cannot verify insurance if asked by the BMV. It is boilerplate language that is likely included when any vehicle is removed. It does not imply that you were previously meeting the financial responsibility requirments.

So why would i sign a paper saying AFTER REMOVAL OF FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE NOW i fail to meet the laws requirements? As i mentioned prior most of this was verbal. The this paper only shows i had a coverage i never asked for or wanted and why i cancelled it once i learned fire and theft was NOT required by law.

"McCutcheon Insurance agency, has discussed with the insured the Ohio's Financial Responsibility Law."

Why would agent need to discuss this law if fire and theft coverage never met the requirements unless it was implied it did meet the states financial responsibility law?

"By removing this auto, our insurance agency cannot verify auto insurance if the BMV mails out a Random Selection Letter."

So before removing fire and theft coverage if i was randomly selected to prove insurance fire and theft would have met the states requirements suggested here.
 
Last edited:

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Again, it is simply a warning that the agency cannot verify that you are covered. They couldn't verify it before, either.
 
Again, it is simply a warning that the agency cannot verify that you are covered. They couldn't verify it before, either.

Right !!!! They never could have verified i met the requirements of the law. Because fire and theft does NOT meet the requirements of the law.

I only went with their implied requirements of the law cause they told me it would meet the requirements of the law.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
I believe you...what you have to prove is that you were specifically informed that you MUST have that insurance.
And probably also prove that you were told that you did not have to have liability coverage. That is what is the most unbelievable about your story Freedom Fighter. I can easily see a somewhat unscrupulous insurance agent up selling you add on things like fire and theft on top of liability by indicating that you must have them, but its honestly hard to believe that any insurance agent would be stupid enough not to include liability in the package.
 
And probably also prove that you were told that you did not have to have liability coverage. That is what is the most unbelievable about your story Freedom Fighter. I can easily see a somewhat unscrupulous insurance agent up selling you add on things like fire and theft on top of liability by indicating that you must have them, but its honestly hard to believe that any insurance agent would be stupid enough not to include liability in the package.
ohh i got proof of no liability on these cars that only had fire and theft coverage i will show u now. Its kinda blurry too but clear enough to show what had liability and what didnt.
 
"https://i.ibb.co/nf052ZN/proof-of-only-fire-and-theft-coverage-pic-1.jpg"

i dont wanna type out a whole page again. So i will just explain the pic. Top left shows 3 vehicles. 01, 02, and 03

01 shown mid page has bodily property medical uninsured and 100 dollar deductible

02 and 03 shows no coverage for those categories other then the deductible at the bottom

02 is the 1965 mustang that in the other pic shows removal of ONLY FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE cause that is all it had

03 is the 1965 Chev nova that in the other pic shows removal of ONLY FIRE AND THEFT COVERAGE cause that is all it had
 
Last edited:

PayrollHRGuy

Senior Member
ohh i got proof of no liability on these cars that only had fire and theft coverage i will show u now. Its kinda blurry too but clear enough to show what had liability and what didnt.
We don't need that proof. I've had cars that were being restored that I had fire and theft coverage with no liability on them. It isn't that unusual because they weren't licensed to drive on the road.

If you weren't going to drive them (hence have no need for liability) why did you even talk to the agent about insuring them at all?
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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