125 Ohio App. 3d 270 - Weller v. Farris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Whether the insured breached the cooperation clause is generally determined “in view of the facts and circumstances in each ease”; however, the issue may be determined by the court as a matter of law “when a case presents undisputed facts.” Gabor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 141, 144 , 583 N.E.2d 1041 . Courts of other states have similarly held that prejudice resulting from an insured’s failure to cooperate is an issue of fact. Anderson v. Kemper (1983), 128 Mich.App. 249, 253 , 340 N.W.2d 87, 90 ; Ramos v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co. (Fla.1976), 336 So.2d 71, 75 . Prejudice has been described as involving material injury to the insurer’s ability to contest the merits of the case, Anderson, 128 Mich.App. at 253-254 , 340 N.W.2d at 90 , or serious impairment in investigating the claim or defending the merits of the case. King v. Federal Ins. Co., 788 F.Supp. 506, 506 (D.Kan. 1992), affirmed 996 F.2d 311 (10th Cir.1993); Darcy v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1990), 407 Mass. 481 , 490, 554 N.E.2d 28, 34 . Cf. Boone v. Lowry (1983), 8 Kan.App.2d 293, 302 , 657 P.2d 64, 72 (requiring the insurer to show “at the very least that if the cooperation clause had not been breached there was a substantial likelihood that the trier of fact, in an action against the insured, would have found in the insured’s favor.”)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 589 F. Supp. 2d 937 - Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Federal Insurance