The discussion contained herein will commence with a brief examination of the uninsured and underinsured motorist statute's purpose.

Following the discussion of the uninsured motorist statute's purpose, the discussion will proceed to survey all cases to date which have had occasion to deal with Alexander in a substantive manner. Nine of the twelve Ohio appellate districts have considered the Alexander decision in some respect. Likewise, the Ohio Supreme Court has cited to Alexander as authority for reversing appellate court decisions which upheld exclusions violative of R.C. § 3937.18's purpose. Each decision shall be presented and examined in turn, grouped either by Ohio Supreme Court decision or by appellate district.

Subsequently, the discussion will turn its focus to Alexander's impact on the "owned-but-not-insured" exclusion contained in most automobile liability policies. Case law established prior to Alexander will be explored and will attempt to be reconciled with Alexander if possible. Intertwined, a survey of case law from other jurisdictions outside of Ohio which have dealt with this exclusion will be presented, though by no means in an exhaustive sense. This discussion will focus in part on the premise that uninsured motorist coverage is not risk related as is liability coverage, and that uninsured motorist coverage is portable, following the insured person and not the insured vehicle.