15 So. 3d 122 - Reinhardt v. Barger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “SPECIAL PROVISIONS — LOUISIANA THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. Jb* SECTION II — LIABILITY COVERAGES SECTION II — EXCLUSIONS E. Coverage E — Personal Liability and Coverage F — Medical Payments to Others Coverage E — Personal Liability and Coverage F — Medical Payments to Others do not apply to: Paragraph 1. Expected or Intended Injury is deleted in all forms and replaced by the following: We do not cover any “bodily injury” or “property damage” intended by, or caused by or originating from or in connection to or which may be expected to result from the intentional or criminal acts or omissions of any insured person. This exclusion applies even if: a. Such insured person lacks the mental capacity to govern his or her conduct; b. Such bodily injury or property damage is of a different kind or degree than that intended or reasonably expected; or c. Such bodily injury or property [damage] is sustained by a differ- . ent person than that intended or reasonably expected. This exclusion applies regardless of whether or not such insured person is actually charged with or convicted of a crime. This exclusion applies regardless of the number of “insureds”, the number of claims made, or the number of persons injured. (Italicized emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Breazeale v. T.T.

2. “When consumers purchase homeowner’s insurance, their intent is to purchase a broad package policy to protect themselves from a broad range of risks that may arise out of homeownership and personal liability. A limitation for liability coverage related to children is not a reasonable expectation of the policyholder. No homeowner would knowingly purchase a homeowner’s policy limiting coverage for their liability with respect to their children. _l±f * * BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE IS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF REGULATING THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE DE PARTMENT OF INSURANCE VIEWS THE USE OF ANY TYPE OF LIMITATION CLAUSE IN A HOMEOWNER’S POLICY WHICH RESULTS IN LIMITING THE LIABILITY COVERAGE OF AN INSURER FOR PARENTS’ VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF THEIR CHILDREN IS AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST. Property and Casualty insurers whose policies contain a limitation of vicarious parental liability in their homeowner’s policies, endorsements or exclusions are hereby directed to modify their contracts by submitting a revised policy form, or an endorsement, deleting the exclusion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Breazeale v. T.T.