One Signature Cost Three Crash Victims Their Underinsured-Motorist Coverage

Published June 9, 2026 · Ohio Appeals Courts

The at-fault driver's insurance company offers you its full policy limit. It feels like the end of a long wait: a check, finally, and a release to sign. But if your injuries are worth more than that policy, and you plan to make an underinsured motorist claim with your own insurer, signing that release too soon can wipe out the coverage you paid for.

That is what happened in Yontz v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2026-Ohio-1800, decided by the Sixth District Court of Appeals on May 15, 2026. Three women who were hurt in the same car signed releases with the at-fault driver without their UIM insurer's written consent. The court held that not only their claims, but every claim connected to that State Farm coverage, was barred.

The crash and the settlements

On July 2, 2019, a car carrying three women was struck in Norwalk Township in Huron County. All three were injured and taken to the hospital. The car was owned by the driver's husband and insured by State Farm, with uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

The at-fault driver carried liability limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident, which had to be shared among the injured people. In March 2021, State Farm was told in writing that the at-fault driver's insurer was offering its limits, that the money had to be allocated among several claimants, and that two of the women's claims exceeded the per-person limit. The letter asked State Farm to treat it as a request to pursue the underinsured coverage and invited State Farm to join the allocation discussions. Two days later, State Farm replied asking for proof of the policy limits of all at-fault parties and proof that all applicable limits had been offered. According to State Farm, it never received a response.

In June 2021, the three women signed releases with the at-fault driver for $25,000, $10,000, and $7,000. Each release discharged the at-fault driver from all claims arising from the crash. Days later, they sued State Farm for UIM benefits, joined by two husbands with loss-of-consortium claims and a claim for the damaged car.

What the policy required

State Farm's policy said three things that turned out to be decisive:

1. Consent to settlement. The insured must tell State Farm about any settlement offer and request State Farm's written consent to accept it. State Farm then either consents in writing or declines and pays the insured the same amount itself.
2. An exclusion. There is no coverage for an insured who settles with a responsible party without State Farm's written consent.
3. A no-action clause. No lawsuit relating to the coverage may be brought until there has been full compliance with the consent-to-settlement provision.

Why the court ruled for State Farm

The Sixth District applied the two-step test from the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 186, 2002-Ohio-7217.

Step one: was the consent clause breached? Yes. The court held that telling State Farm negotiations were under way and inviting it to participate was not the same as informing it of a specific offer and asking for written consent to accept it. The women signed releases without State Farm's written consent.

Step two: was State Farm prejudiced? Under Ferrando, an insurer is relieved of its obligation only if the breach actually prejudiced it, but a breach of a consent-to-settle clause is presumed prejudicial absent evidence to the contrary. The reason is subrogation: when a UM/UIM insurer pays, R.C. 3937.18(J) gives it the right to recover from the person who caused the crash, and a release can destroy that right. The court found that the plaintiffs offered no argument or evidence to rebut the presumption.

Finally, because of the no-action clause, the court held that State Farm was relieved of its obligation to everyone with a claim under that coverage, including the husbands' consortium claims and the property claim.

The lesson: notice is not consent

It is easy to read a case like this and blame the people who signed. That would miss the point. Nothing about a release from the other driver's insurer warns you that you are about to give up your own coverage. The at-fault driver's adjuster wants the file closed; protecting your UIM claim is not that adjuster's job. And the difference between telling your insurer about a settlement and obtaining its written consent is the kind of detail that only matters when it is too late.

Here is the sequence that protects you:

1. Notify your own insurer early that you may have a UM/UIM claim.
2. When the at-fault driver's insurer offers its limits, get the offer in writing.
3. Send that specific offer to your UM/UIM insurer, with proof of the at-fault driver's limits, and ask in writing for consent to accept it. Respond promptly to any reasonable request for information.
4. Do not sign anything until you have written consent, or until your insurer instead pays you the same amount itself to preserve its subrogation rights.
5. Then sign, and pursue the UIM claim.

When several people in the same car are sharing one limited policy, this process should be handled for each of them, and for each policy that may provide coverage.

Ferrando also matters if a mistake has already been made. The presumption of prejudice can be rebutted with evidence. The Supreme Court in Ferrando discussed an example in which the at-fault driver was completely judgment-proof, so a release cost the insurer nothing it could have collected. Whether that kind of evidence exists is fact-specific, but it should always be investigated.

What this means for you

If another driver's policy limits are not enough to cover your injuries, assume your own UM/UIM coverage will be needed, and treat every release as a document that can affect it. Our guide chapter on using your own insurance explains consent-to-settle clauses and the UIM setoff, and our chapter on mistakes that hurt your case lists this as one of the most costly errors we see. The chapter on dealing with insurance adjusters explains why the other driver's adjuster is not looking out for you.

Coverage questions can also cut the other way. As we reported in March, an Ohio court found UIM coverage for a driver listed on a parent's policy whom the insurer had turned away. Our UM/UIM claims page covers the full process.