What happened: An Ohio appeals court ruled a trial court can require proof of coverage even after entering default judgment against an insurer.
Who’s involved: ACE American Insurance Company, ACI Foodsystems.
What’s at stake: A $500,000 underinsured motorist coverage claim.
Why it matters: Default judgment does not create coverage where the policy excludes it.
Where it stands: Affirmed on appeal, October 13, 2026.
A car-crash victim won default judgment against her employer’s insurer twice, claimed $500,000 in underinsured motorist coverage - and still walked away with nothing.
An Ohio appeals court has affirmed that even after entering default against an insurer, a trial court can demand proof that coverage actually exists before awarding damages.
The employee was injured in an automobile accident on March 27, 2024, while driving a vehicle owned by her employer, ACI Foodsystems. The vehicle was insured under a business auto policy issued by ACE American Insurance Company. She filed for $500,000 in UIM coverage against ACE in the Marion County Court of Common Pleas.
She did not attach the policy to her complaint.
ACE failed to respond and the trial court entered default judgment. ACE then filed a motion for reconsideration, producing the policy’s UIM coverage summary page. It stated: “No Coverage is offered or provided for vehicles principally garaged or registered in the following states: MI, OH, PR.”
The trial court set aside the default. ACE failed to respond a second time. The court entered another default.
After a damages hearing on August 29, 2025, the trial court granted the employee’s default judgment - but with a significant limitation. Default did not resolve the central question of whether the policy actually provided UIM coverage. The court ordered ACE to produce an authenticated copy of the full policy.
Its reasoning: “the fact [the] Complaint did not contain the relevant policy information precludes the Court’s rendering a legal conclusion on default that coverage exists.”
After reviewing the full policy, the trial court entered judgment for ACE on April 7, 2026. The plain language expressly excluded UIM coverage for Ohio-garaged vehicles.
On appeal, the employee conceded the policy did not provide UIM coverage. Her sole argument was that the trial court had no authority to look past the default. The Third Appellate District disagreed, pointing to Ohio Civil Rule 55(A), which allows courts to “establish the truth of any averment by evidence” before entering default judgment.
The court affirmed on October 13, 2026.
Two procedural wins could not create coverage the policy excluded. For claims teams handling UIM disputes, the case is a reminder that verifying actual policy terms matters more than the procedural posture - a default does not rewrite the policy.
