The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the responsibility to provide auto coverage for the driver of a borrowed car rests solely on the driver's insurer and not the owner's insurer. The case is Acuity v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 2023 Ohio LEXIS 2066 (Ohio 2023). 

Ashton Smith borrowed a friend's car with permission and was involved in an auto accident. Smith was insured through his father's auto policy with Acuity because he was listed as a driver; he was also considered a "permissive user" through his friend's policy with Progressive for the vehicle involved in the accident. The policies had identical limits. 

Acuity filed a judgment action claiming Progressive was responsible for coverage and Acuity only owed coverage in excess of the Progressive policy. Acuity's excess insurance clause said Acuity would pay its proportionate share of a loss if other insurance was available but would only owe excess coverage for a vehicle not owned by the insured if other auto coverage was available. Since the policy limits were the same, Acuity claimed it did not owe coverage to Smith. Progressive, on the other hand, argued that Smith was not an insured person under the auto owner's policy, thereby relieving Progressive of the coverage obligation.