State RegulationsOH specificDifficulty 3/5
After a divorce, a natural child covered under the father's family health policy lives with the mother in another Ohio city. The insurer threatens to drop the child from family coverage solely because the child does not reside in the father's household. What is the correct legal position?
Select an option to reveal the answer and the full 3-part explanation — free, no signup.
Answer & full 3-part explanation (select an option above, or peek)
Why C is correct
Ohio's unfair-discrimination provisions (ORC 3901.21) prohibit denying family coverage to a natural or adopted child solely because the child does not reside in the policyholder's household. Post-divorce living arrangements therefore cannot by themselves justify removing the child, although the ordinary eligibility conditions of the coverage still apply.
Why the other options are wrong
- A) Household residence alone is not a lawful basis; ORC 3901.21 forbids denial solely on that ground.
- B) School enrollment is relevant to the age-26 conditions under ORC 3923.24, but the non-residence ground itself is barred by ORC 3901.21.
- D) ORC 3901.21 reaches a child residing outside the household generally; out-of-state residence is not an automatic exclusion ground.
Memory hook
No roof, no problem: a child's address alone can't cancel family coverage.