Cashman Ex Rel. Cashman v. Cherry

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the UIM insurance company was responsible for the difference between Plaintiff’s pro rata share of a $100,000 settlement and her total damages of $40,539.91
• discussing the Upland approach to negligent entrustment cases and explaining that “[h]ad there been an automobile liability policy the issue would not have reached the Court.”
• UIM coverage issues involve a question of law over which appellate courts have unlimited review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).