Opinion

Neckerman v. Progressive Insurance Agency

  • 103 Ohio App. 3d 414
  • 659 N.E.2d 843
  • 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 1927
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
May 10, 1995
Status
Published
Author
Bettman
On the bench
Sundermann, Concuts, Bettman, Shannon
Cited by
3 cases

holding that the insurer was prejudiced as a matter of law because it was never notified of the lawsuit

How later courts described this case

  • holding that the insurer was prejudiced as a matter of law because it was never notified of the lawsuit
  • holding insurer was prejudiced as a matter of law because it was never notified of the lawsuit

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Marianna Brown Bettman, Presiding Judge,

dissenting.

I would not allow the insurer the right to rely on the policy defense of failure of notification of suit against the insured in the underlying case of Neckerman against the insured when, after a complete investigation of the claim, ten months before suit was filed against the insured, the insurer denied coverage, with no reservation of rights and no explanation to the insured about what further was required of him.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.