Weldon v. Commercial Union Assurance Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2016
21 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 King v. Travelers Insurance Company · 242 Cal. App. 2d 419 - General Insurance v. Truck Insurance Exchange · Atlas Assurance Co. v. General Builders, Inc. · California Packing Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co. · 60 Cal. App. 3d 17 - Furtado v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Moreover, a specific provision relating to a particular subject will govern in respect to that subject, as against a general provision, even though the latter, standing alone, would be broad enough to include the subject to which the more specific provision relates.” Furtado v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 60 Cal.App.3d 17, 25 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 250, 255 (1976) (quoting General Insurance Co. of America v. Truck Insurance Exchange, 242 Cal.App.2d 419, 426 , 51 Cal.Rptr. 462, 468 (1966)[)]. See also California Packing Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co., 275 Cal.App.2d 363, 370 , 80 Cal.Rptr. 150, 155 (1969) (“Where general and specific provisions of an insurance policy differ as to its coverage or applicability, the specific provisions will prevail”). See also Edmondson v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co., 48 Ohio St.2d 52, 53 , 356 N.E.2d 722, 723 (1976). (The general rule is “that when an [insurance] agreement contains both a general and a specific provision, the latter controls if the two may not otherwise be reconciled.”) In other words, “general expressions of coverage in the insuring clause of an insurance policy do not render ineffective the limitations provided by exclusions stated in subsequent clauses of the policy.” 13. J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 7387, at 181 (1976).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When an ambiguity exists, the court must construe the policy so as to sustain indemnity.”
1 later decision 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.