Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court considers claim that agents misadvised clients on underinsured motorist coverage
Summary
Oral argument in Nickerson Warner (25P59) centered on whether insurance agents made false or misleading representations that left the plaintiffs underinsured, whether plaintiffs timely appealed the summary judgment ruling, and whether expert testimony was required to establish the professional standard of care.
The Appeals Court on Oct. 15 heard argument in Nickerson Warner v. GB Nickerson Insurance Agency, No. 25P59, in which plaintiffs allege their insurance agents misrepresented the adequacy of underinsured motorist coverage and caused the family to carry insufficient protection when a severe injury later occurred.
Kevin Withers, counsel for the plaintiffs, said the plaintiffs were told by agents in the 1990s that their health insurance combined with $100,000 underinsured motorist coverage was sufficient. Withers described the plaintiffs' expectation that added umbrella and bodily-injury limits would produce matching underinsured…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
