Free Ohio Personal Lines Practice Exam Online

Correct answer: A. No, offering UM/UIM coverage is optional for the insurer since S.B. 97 amended the statute effective October 31, 2001

• B: Ohio has no director-waiver mechanism for UM/UIM; the statute simply makes the coverage optional for insurers to offer at all, not conditioned on a waiver.
• C: ORC 3937.18(A) does not tie the optional nature of UM/UIM to the insured's liability limits; the offer is optional regardless of the liability limits carried.
• D: UM/UIM coverage was not abolished; insurers may still offer and sell it, they are simply no longer statutorily required to do so.

Correct answer: B. Ohio law had, as a matter of law, implied UM/UIM coverage into policies where none was properly rejected, a result S.B. 97 was intended to eliminate

• A: This is the opposite of the historical rule; before the 2001 amendment, silence tended to result in coverage being implied for the insured's benefit, not denied.
• C: No Ohio statute or ODI mechanism retroactively adds coverage and charges an added premium after the fact; the amendment addressed implied coverage by operation of law, not agency action.
• D: Silence was not treated as a self-executing waiver against the insured; historically it worked against the insurer by implying coverage, which is precisely what the General Assembly intended to stop.

Correct answer: C. Without regard to any premiums involved, meaning the anti-stacking terms are valid regardless of how premium was charged for the coverage

• A: The statute does not condition anti-stacking terms on a separate 'stacking-waiver premium'; the preclusion is permitted regardless of premium arrangement.
• B: ORC 3937.18(F) does not set a vehicle-count threshold for when anti-stacking terms can be applied.
• D: There is no combined-single-limit dollar threshold in the statute governing when anti-stacking language may be used.

Correct answer: D. The same person or two or more family members of the same household

• A: That description matches the statute's definition of 'interfamily' stacking, not 'intrafamily' stacking.
• B: The statute's stacking definitions concern aggregation of limits under coverages as described in the policy language, not combining limits purchased from two separate unrelated insurers under this specific 'intrafamily' term.
• C: This is a personal-lines UM/UIM statute concerning family/household stacking; it is not about commercial fleet aggregation.

Correct answer: A. Punitive or exemplary damages

• B: ORC 3937.182 does not bar coverage of compensatory medical expenses; it specifically targets punitive/exemplary damages.
• C: Property damage repair costs are a standard covered loss type and are not what this statute prohibits.
• D: Lost wage damages are not the subject of this exclusion; the statute is limited to punitive/exemplary damages.