Nila v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest

How courts have described this case

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

• referring to Cloninger and then stating, “Keeping the legislative intent of the statute in mind, we turn to the language of the statute itself”; and later concluding, “We believe that [our interpretation] comports with the intent behind the uninsured motorist statute as set out in Cloninger”
• the rationale of UIM cases has been applied to UM cases, as both coverages are part of the same statutory scheme
• insurer required to provide UM coverage equal to the amount of bodily injury coverage provided by policy since insured never rejected such additional coverage, regardless of continuous agreement included in policy issued to deceased husband
• insurer required to provide UM coverage equal to the amount of bodily injury coverage provided by policy since insured never rejected such additional coverage, regardless of continuous agreement included in policy issued to deceased husband

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).