Fact-Checked: Why Trust Rittgers Rittgers & Nakajima Some people, even some lawyers, often believe that pain and suffering damages stemming from a car crash are capped at $250,000 under Ohio’s tort reform law that places a legislative ceiling on the amount of money an injury victim can recover for pain and suffering, but that is not always the case. Frequently, a car crash victim is forced to look to her own car insurance company for recovery even when she is not at fault for the crash or injury. This occurs when the at-fault driver has little or no insurance coverage and when the injury victim has insurance called uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.
Why does the Damage Cap not Apply to UM / UIM claims?
The simple answer is because the legislature excludes caps on damages in breach of contract claims and UM / UIM claims are contractual claims.
This was specifically addressed in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson where the Plaintiff attempted to argue that § 2315.21 violated various provisions of the Ohio Constitution stating that it both offended her right to a jury trial and abrogated the jury’s right to award punitive damages. The Court denied these arguments holding that §2315.21 did not offend the due process or equal protection clauses of the Ohio Constitution and was Constitutional. During the Ohio Supreme Court’s analysis, the Court explained that for purposes of § 2315.21, “‘[t]ort action’ means a civil action for damages for injury or loss to person or property,” and includes products-liability actions but not actions for breach of contract or other agreements. (§ 2315.21(A)(1)). The statute also excludes tort actions against the state in the Court of Claims, actions against political subdivisions under Chapter 2744, and certain other exceptions listed in § 2315.21(E)(1)–(4).
How have Ohio Courts applied caps for UM / UIM claims?
Ohio courts have consistently held that an insured’s claim against their insurer for UM or UIM benefits arises from the insurance contract rather than tort law. This distinction is crucial because Ohio’s tort reform caps apply only to tort actions, not contract-based claims. Since UM and UIM claims are governed by the terms of the insurance policy, they fall entirely outside the scope of the statutory damage caps. Furthermore, there are no statutory damages caps specifically applicable to damages recoverable in UM or UIM insurance contract disputes. In the event of a UM or UIM action against an insured’s provider, even in relation to a tort action, the language of the insurance policy itself will govern the total damages related to the UM/UIM action. Any other holding would disproportionately burden victims by imposing an irrational and arbitrary limit on damages resulting from a contractual dispute concerning the insurance policy.