Popham v. State Farm Mutual Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it is question of fact as to whether insurer and its agent “breached a duty [as] ‘required by the exercise of their legal duty of reasonable care’” by failing to offer client “orally or otherwise, an opportunity to contract for . . . uninsured motorist coverage.”
• stating in dictum that an insurance agent “may become liable in fact to the principal who suffers a loss” because of the agent’s “failure to use” the proper care
• explaining an insurer’s option to provide UM coverage under an umbrella policy
• “The principal may sue the agent, either in contract or for negligence in the performance of the duty imposed by the contract.”
• “Unless an appeal is from a final judgment, the appellate court does not acquire subject matter jurisdiction to review it”
• “Th[e] determination [of whether there has been a breach of the duty of care] depends on upon the existence of evidence that [the insurance company] opted to offer [coverage].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).