Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. C.A. Turner Construction Co.’s Empirical Analysis
112 F.3d 184 · 1997
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Meridian Mutual Insurance Company v. Roslyn E. Kellman, Skender Bajrami, Individually and Doing Business as Kopliku Painting Company (1999), Matador Petroleum Corporation v. St Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company (1999)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Industries, Inc. · Continental Casualty Co. v. Rapid-American Corp. · Harwell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · Puckett v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co. · Pipefitters Welfare Educational Fund v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The terms “irritant” and “contaminant,” when viewed in isolation, are virtually boundless, for there is virtually no substance or chemical in existence that would not irritate or damage some person or property. Without some limiting principle, the pollution exclusion clause would extend far beyond its intended scope, and lead to some absurd results. To take but two simple examples, reading the clause broadly would bar coverage for bodily injuries suffered by one who slips and falls on the spilled contents of a bottle of Drano, and for bodily injury caused by an allergic reaction to chlorine in a public pool. Although Drano and chlorine are both irritants or contaminants that cause, under certain conditions, bodily injury or property damage, one would not ordinarily characterize these events as pollution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under Texas rules of contractual interpretation, if an insurance contract is expressed in unambiguous language, its terms will be given their plain meaning and it will be enforced as written. If, however, a contract is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, a court will resolve any ambiguity in favor of coverage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.