Nuckolls v. Tomlin

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the policy’s exhaustion clause “is a valid precondition to coverage under such policy.”
• construing a subrogation clause constructed and phrased similarly to those at issue here
• \[A]n insurer may not avoid coverage by unreasonably refusing to consent to a settlement....\
• “The exhaustion clause must be construed as ... a threshold requirement and not a barrier to [UIM] coverage”
• overruled in part on other grounds by Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 186, 781 N.E.2d 927 (2002)
• “[T]he Bogans’ grant of a full and final release to the [tortfeasors] effectively destroyed Progressive’s subrogation right to recover from the [tortfeasors] any money paid to the Bogans.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).