Jefferson v. Sinclair Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2012
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Lawrence v. . Fox · Seaver v. . Ransom · Daniel-Morris Co. v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“True it is that Lipsett (contractor) agreed to indemnify and save harmless Sinclair (premises owner) from personal injury claims arising out of the work involved in the contract between them, and to conduct the defense of any such suit against Sinclair. That was Lipsett’s obligation. It also agreed to furnish an insurance policy by a company and in a form satisfactory to Sinclair. It did so. In that policy Sinclair was neither a named insured nor an additional insured. Since the endorsement on Lipsett’s existing comprehensive policy under which Sinclair is claiming covers “contractual liability”, the contract was identified in the endorsement. All Insurance Co. agreed to do, however, was to “pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured, by reason of the liability assumed by him under [the] written contract * * * shall become legally obligated to pay”. Lipsett, the only insured, has not yet become legally obligated to pay anything; nor indeed has Sinclair. Until such event, any claim of Sinclair against Insurance Co. is premature. As to the “defense” provision of the policy, Insurance Co. is obligated only to “defend any suit against the insured”, namely Lip-sett, and that it is now doing. If Lipsett fails in its own undertaking to defend Sinclair, the latter may well have the right to recover the reasonable counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending plaintiffs action ... Its claim for reimbursement of a sum not yet known nor earned is, therefore, likewise prem”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.