Webb v. McCarty’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the Supreme Court [in Webb ] did not consider the individual wrongful-death beneficiaries' claims, nor did it discuss the division of the settlement proceeds among the wrongful-death claimants. Rather, the Supreme Court compared the total amount paid under the tortfeasor's policy with the per-accident limit of the UIM coverage. Accordingly, the Supreme Court determined that *Page 9 "Webb and other claimants under his policy are underinsured to the extent that his UM policy's per-accident limit, $300,000, exceeds the amount available for payment,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Long v. Erie Ins. Co., 2007 Ca 67 (12-26-2008) · Kuchmar v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., C-060866 (11-30-2007)

2. “) coverage under Webb's insurance policy , which had a $100,000-per-person limit and a $300,000-per-accident limit.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Long v. Erie Ins. Co., 2007 Ca 67 (12-26-2008) · Kuchmar v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., C-060866 (11-30-2007)

3. “[w]e have rejected this argument, that a limits-to-limits comparison controls, in situations involving multiple claimants. Today, we reject it again, summarily, on the authority of Littrell . * * * The [ Littrell ] opinion made it clear that, in cases involving multiple claimants, UM coverage would be compared to the amount paid under an automobile liability policy, not to the limit of the automobile liability policy.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Estate of Jackson v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2007ca00205 (11-3-2008)