## Facts

- Thomas and Kathleen Kurent, Ohio residents, bought an automobile insurance policy in Ohio from Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc., including uninsured-motorist (UM) coverage.
- The Kurents were injured in Michigan in a motor vehicle accident caused by Michael Karczewski, a Michigan resident insured in Michigan under a policy compliant with Michigan’s no-fault scheme.
- Michigan’s no-fault law restricted tort recovery for noneconomic damages (e.g., pain and suffering) unless statutory injury thresholds were met.
- The Kurents’ injuries did not satisfy Michigan’s threshold for noneconomic tort damages; Karczewski’s insurer denied noneconomic damages and directed the Kurents to no-fault benefits.
- Farmers paid benefits consistent with Michigan no-fault rules for economic losses but denied UM coverage for noneconomic losses, asserting the tortfeasor was not “uninsured.”
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Kurents; the court of appeals reversed and entered summary judgment for Farmers.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio or Michigan substantive law governs an Ohio insured’s UM claim arising from an accident in Michigan involving a Michigan tortfeasor subject to Michigan no-fault limits.
2. Whether a tortfeasor insured in compliance with Michigan law becomes an “uninsured motorist” under an Ohio UM policy merely because Michigan law bars or limits recovery of noneconomic damages.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the court of appeals and upheld summary judgment for Farmers.
- Michigan law governed because Michigan had the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties relevant to tort liability and damage availability.
- The tortfeasor was not an uninsured motorist for UM purposes solely because Michigan law limited the Kurents’ ability to recover noneconomic damages.
- The Kurents were not entitled to UM benefits under their Ohio policy for noneconomic losses.

## Legal Principles

- In multistate automobile accident disputes, Ohio applies a “most significant relationship” analysis (Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws) to select the governing substantive law for tort-related questions affecting coverage.
- A statutory restriction on tort remedies in the governing state (such as Michigan’s no-fault threshold for noneconomic damages) is a substantive limit on liability, not an absence of insurance.
- UM coverage is triggered by the tortfeasor’s uninsured status as measured under the governing law and policy terms; it does not operate to override another state’s tort-recovery limits when the tortfeasor is insured in compliance with that state’s law.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court held that Michigan’s no-fault law controlled an Ohio insured’s attempt to obtain UM benefits for a Michigan accident and that a Michigan-insured driver is not “uninsured” under an Ohio UM policy merely because Michigan law restricts noneconomic tort recovery.


Kurent v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc., 62 Ohio St. 3d 242, 581 N.E.2d 533 (Ohio 1991)