This list includes only these decisions of the state’s court of last resort. It does not even begin to touch upon the provisions invalidated by decisions of inferior trial courts and intermediate courts of appeal which, for one reason or another, never reached the Supreme Court. And those intermediate appellate courts, it should be noted, have not limited themselves to invalidating provisions that are contrary to state statutes. In at least one case, a court of appeals held that an “other owned auto” exclusion in an uninsured motorist endorsement was invalid and unenforceable, even though the provision was expressly permitted by statute. In another case, an Ohio court of appeals invalidated a policy exclusion of uninsured motorist coverage where the insured had executed a fully compliant rejection in 1994, but had not signed another rejection for the 1996 policy year. The court so ruled even though the version of the controlling statute specifically provided that “unless the named insured requests such coverage in writing, such coverages need not be provided in a supplemental renewal policy where the named insured has rejected the coverages in connection with the policy previously issued to him by the same insurer.”
Tucker, Robert L.
"Disappearing Ink: The Emerging Duty to Remove Invalid Policy Provisions,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 42
, Article 6.
Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol42/iss2/6