Katherine Tomko, a driver injured in an auto accident, faced a setback when the Ohio Court of Appeals ruled in favor of ACE American Insurance Company regarding her claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The court's decision, issued on October 13, 2026, clarifies the requirements for proving entitlement to insurance coverage after a default judgment.
The case, known as Tomko v. ACE American Insurance Co., was filed under docket number 9-26-30. Tomko sought compensation for injuries sustained in a crash caused by an underinsured driver while operating a vehicle owned by her employer, ACI Foodsystems. The ruling is significant as it sets a precedent for how courts handle claims for insurance coverage when a defendant is in default.
In the background of this case, Tomko was involved in an accident on March 27, 2024. She filed a complaint against ACE on January 13, 2025, claiming she was entitled to UIM coverage under a business auto policy issued to her employer. However, she did not attach a copy of the insurance policy to her complaint, which became a central issue in the case.
Initially, Tomko applied for a default judgment against ACE after the company failed to respond to her complaint. The trial court granted her request on April 24, 2025, and scheduled a hearing to determine damages. However, ACE later filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the policy did not provide UIM coverage. The trial court agreed and set aside the default judgment, allowing ACE to respond to the complaint.
The dispute escalated as Tomko filed multiple motions for default judgment, and the trial court ultimately permitted ACE to present evidence regarding the insurance policy. During the proceedings, the court noted that Tomko's complaint did not include the necessary policy information to establish her claim for UIM coverage.
On April 7, 2026, the trial court ruled in favor of ACE, stating that Tomko failed to prove her entitlement to UIM coverage. The court emphasized that the plain language of the ACE policy explicitly excluded UIM coverage, leading to the decision against Tomko.
Judge William R. Zimmerman, along with Judges Mark C. Miller and Juergen A. Waldick, presided over the case. The court concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion by requiring evidence to establish whether the policy provided UIM coverage. The ruling stated, "the fact [Tomko’s] Complaint did not contain the relevant policy information precludes the Court’s rendering a legal conclusion on default that coverage exists."
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Tomko's case. It clarifies that a plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to support claims for insurance coverage, even when a defendant is in default. This decision may influence how future cases are handled, particularly regarding the necessity of attaching relevant policy documents to complaints.
Going forward, individuals filing claims for insurance coverage should ensure they include all necessary documentation to support their cases. This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of thoroughness in legal proceedings, especially in matters involving insurance claims.
As for the possibility of an appeal, it remains to be seen whether Tomko will pursue further legal action following this ruling. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court's opinion. The court's decision has been affirmed, and the case is now closed unless new developments arise.