X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the responsibility to provide auto coverage for the driver of a borrowed car rests solely on the driver’s insurer and not the owner’s insurer. The case is Acuity v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 2023 Ohio LEXIS 2066 (Ohio 2023). 

Ashton Smith borrowed a friend’s car with permission and was involved in an auto accident. Smith was insured through his father’s auto policy with Acuity because he was listed as a driver; he was also considered a “permissive user” through his friend’s policy with Progressive for the vehicle involved in the accident. The policies had identical limits. 

This premium content is locked for
FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation subscribers.

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis

Already have an account?
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact our Sales Department at 1-800-543-0874 or email [email protected].

Kelly Helton, JD

 

Get Answers Directly From the FC&S Experts

Submit your coverage interpretation question to the editors of FC&S for quick and reliable information.

Question of the Week

Insurance Coverage Q&A: Firefighting Expenses and Coverage ›

When an insured and tenants help fight the fire, is there coverage for their efforts?

Question of the Week Archive ›

Copyright © 2024 ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.