Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Travelers Ins. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 9 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently October 2008 · most notably 57 Cal. 2d 27 - Continental Casualty Co. v. Zurich Insurance (1961), American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance (1960)
24 federal appellate · 9 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Wagman v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co. · 155 Pa. Super. 266 - Ferry v. Protective Indemnity Co. of New York · Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Hilderbrandt · Marshall's U. S. Auto Supply, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. · Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance v. American Mutual Liability 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he term 'hired automobile,’ generally speaking, refers to a vehicle used under a contract of rental[,] ... it is evident that the provisions in this policy [defining 'hired automobile' as one 'used under contract in behalf of, or loaned to, the named insured’] contemplated a broader and more comprehensive coverage than that”). 5 . Thus we need not decide, for example, whether Maryland would categorically exclude vehicles used by independent contractors from the definition of a hired auto. 6 . See Reply Br. for Appellants at 4 (arguing that in light of”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * But the injury to Williams would not have occurred but for the loading of the truck, and since Travelers expressly insured against liability arising out of the loading, without regard to who was doing the loading, it would follow that Wegman in loading the truck and using it for that purpose, was an insured within the meaning of the express terms of the policy and that the incident was caused by the operation, that is, in the process of loading the truck by the insured.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"6. Definitions. * * * (b) `Hired Automobile' means an automobile used under contract in behalf of, or loaned to the named insured * * *. (c) `Non-Owned Automobile' means any other automobile." (Emphasis supplied).”
3 later decisions 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.