Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Stopher’s Empirical Analysis
155 F.3d 892 · 1998
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 2018
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Erie Insurance v. Hickman Ex Rel. Smith · Wood v. Mid-Valley Inc. · Eli Lilly & Co. v. Home Insurance Co. · Tate v. Secura 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. The named insured shown in the Declarations is authorized to act for each additional Named Insured listed in all matters pertaining to this insurance including, but not limited to, receipt of: a. Notice of cancellation; b. Any returned premium; c. Any dividends which we may declare. [[Image here]] D. This endorsement is being placed on the policy only because the Named Insured shown in the Declarations has told us that it and the additional Named Insured's interest listed below are owned or financially controlled by the same interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) The named insured of an automobile or motor vehicle liability policy has the right, in writing, to: (1) reject both the uninsured motorist coverage and the underinsured motorist coverage provided for in this section; or (2) reject either the uninsured motorist coverage alone or the underinsured motorist coverage alone, if the insurer provides the coverage not rejected separately from the coverage rejected.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It ... is inconsistent for the [insured] to argue that Nucor could obtain the policy on behaif of Nucor Fasteners and Vul-craft, but that Nucor could not bind Nucor Fasteners and Vuleraft with respect to one aspect of the policy -the rejection of UM/UIM coverage. Accordingly, Nucor had the authority to reject UM/UIM coverage on behalf of the additional named insureds.”
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.