Nicholson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that its decision was “consistent with the purpose of section 143a-2” because “[t]he legislature was concerned that without a mandatory offer of UM coverage, some insurers would not offer what an insured is willing to pay for.” (Emphases added)
• finding that “a change in the level of coverage, with its attendant change in the premium cost, is a material change that results in a new policy rather than a mere continuation of the old policy” would require a written rejection of increased UM coverage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).