Two applicants in Cincinnati apply for the same individual health policy and present essentially the same hazard. The insurer charges one of them a materially higher premium without any justification for the difference. Under Ohio law, this practice is:

Why C is correct

ORC 3901.21 prohibits unfair discrimination in health and other non-life coverage between individuals of the same class and essentially the same hazard in premium, fees, rates, benefits, or underwriting. Because the two Cincinnati applicants present the same hazard, charging one more is precisely the discrimination the statute forbids; a genuine hazard difference would be lawful risk selection.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) Lawful risk selection rests on actual hazard differences; where the hazards are essentially the same, differential pricing loses that defense.
• B) Rebating involves giving back part of the premium or offering valuable consideration as an inducement to purchase; nothing of the kind occurred here.
• D) Misrepresentation concerns false or misleading statements about policy terms or benefits; the wrong here is discriminatory pricing, not a false statement.

Memory hook

Same hazard, same price, or Ohio calls it unfair.