Five plaintiffs lost an entire underinsured motorist case against State Farm after three of them settled with the at-fault driver without written consent.
On May 15, 2026, the Sixth Appellate District, sitting in Huron County, handed carriers a clean win on a consent-to-settle clause – the kind of policy language that gets tested constantly in UM/UIM claims.
The case grew out of a July 2, 2019 crash in Norwalk Township. Pamela Sapp hit a vehicle driven by Sabrena Hackathorn, with Rachel Herrington and Verna Yontz riding as passengers. All three women were injured and taken to Fisher-Titus Medical Center. The vehicle belonged to Sabrena's husband, Johnny Hackathorn.
Each of the three women later signed a settlement and release agreement with Sapp and her insurer, Dairyland – Hackathorn for $25,000, Herrington for $10,000, and Yontz for $7,000. None of them got State Farm's written consent before signing.
That was the problem. The Hackathorns' State Farm policy required the insured to inform the carrier of any settlement offer and to request written consent before accepting it. The exclusions section, printed in all capitals, stated there was no coverage for an insured who settled without that written consent with any person or organization who might be held legally liable for the bodily injury. The policy also barred any legal action against State Farm tied to UM coverage until there had been full compliance with the consent-to-settlement and deciding-fault-and-amount provisions.
The paper trail did the rest. On March 5, 2021, plaintiffs' counsel wrote to State Farm flagging that the at-fault driver's attorney had authority to offer the policy limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident through Viking Insurance Company of Wisconsin, contingent on agreement among the claimants on how to split the money. State Farm responded two days later asking for proof of the policy limits of all tortfeasors and proof that all applicable limits had been offered. The plaintiffs never replied. They signed releases in June 2021 and sued State Farm on June 30, 2021, seeking UM/UIM benefits, loss of consortium, and property damage on the totaled 2009 Chrysler Town & Country.
The trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm on February 26, 2025.
On appeal, the Sixth District was unmoved. Writing for the panel, Judge Thomas J. Osowik applied the two-step test from Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co.: was the policy breached, and was the insurer prejudiced? On the first question, the court said the women signed releases without written consent, and called it a clear breach. On the second, the court noted that breach of a consent-to-settle clause is presumed to prejudice the insurer unless there is evidence to the contrary – and the plaintiffs offered none.
The court also brushed aside the argument that State Farm had an affirmative duty to help protect the plaintiffs' subrogation rights under an older Ohio Supreme Court decision, McDonald v. Republic.
In a footnote, the panel said McDonald is overruled to the extent it conflicts with Ferrando.
There was an even broader takeaway for carriers. Because the policy required full compliance before any lawsuit, the court held that the breach by some plaintiffs relieved State Farm of any obligation to cover any of them – including the spouses bringing loss of consortium claims.
Johnny Hackathorn's property damage claim for the van also failed. Plaintiffs had destroyed State Farm's subrogation rights, the trial court found, by failing to name Sapp as a defendant before the statute of limitations expired.
For Ohio insurers and claims teams, the message is plain. Consent-to-settle clauses still do real work, and courts will enforce them on the words on the page – even when the insured says the carrier should have done more.
