Minimum coverage doesn’t cut it

In my youth more than 50 years ago, I was a claims adjuster for a medium-size insurer. At that time, the minimum coverage required was $25,000 property damage and $50,000 bodily injury.

In many cases today, the liability of the insured to the claimant can easily exceed these limits. Even a low-speed accident can result in damages exceeding these limits.

My 2019 Chevy Impala was rear-ended last summer at a police estimate of 15 miles per hour. The total damages were approximately $13,000.

Luckily, we were not injured. But had my wife and I had a “whiplash” injury, medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, and a more expensive car could easily have exceeded the $50,000 and $25,000 amount.

More: What happens if you drive without car insurance in Ohio? What to know before driving

If we were forced to retain a lawyer, they would have taken one-third.

The liability limits need to be greatly increased to properly compensate the actual liabilities of an insured.

Driving is a privilege.

Karl Petzinger, Upper Arlington

Our forests are in danger

The destruction of nearly 60 million acres of currently protected roadless areas within the National Forest System is a distinct possibility if the Trump administration gets its way.

The Roadless Rule came about as a result of widespread public support in protecting inventoried roadless areas from timber harvesting, road construction and other invasive and destructive activities. Public support for protecting these areas garnered over 1.6 million comments, resulting in the protection of almost 60 million acres of National Forest lands.

Because it is aware of the significant amount of public support for maintaining the Roadless Rule, the administration only provided a 21-day period for public comment! The comment period ends Sept. 19.

Comments to the Forest Service can be submitted here: regulations.gov/commenton/FS-2025-0001-0001.

Please also call your congressman and Sen. Jon Husted and Sen. Bernie Moreno to express your opposition to rescinding the Roadless Rule. Please do not delay submitting your comments.David A. Lipstreu, Newark

The Department of Retribution vs the First Amendment

Has the U.S. Department of Justice become the Department of Retribution against anyone who exercises their First Amendment right to criticize the Trump agenda?

For example, if anyone criticizes the recently assassinated Charlie Kirk, they could be fired or at best, canceled. And if anyone advocates for Palestinian rights, they threaten U.S. national security or are labeled antisemitic.

I thought the cancel culture was an indictment of the left.

President Donald Trump’s vindictive policies apply to our institutions as well: i.e., the press, higher education, the judiciary and even retail corporations and law firms.

These policies are not popular with the majority of Americans.

I have confidence that we will reject Trump and his congressional majority in 2026.

Chuck Lynd, Columbus

This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Do you have to have high insurance coverage in Ohio| Letters