# Neckerman v. Progressive Insurance Agency

> Ohio Court of Appeals · May 10, 1995 · 103 Ohio App. 3d 414

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3693621

## Case

- **Full name:** NECKERMAN, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE AGENCY, Appellee
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 10, 1995
- **Citations:** 103 Ohio App. 3d 414; 659 N.E.2d 843; 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 1927
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bettman
- **Judges:** Sundermann, Concuts, Bettman, Shannon
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3693621

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3693621. Public record. Not legal advice.