155 N.J. Super. 474 - Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc. (1979), Indiana Insurance v. DeZutti (1980)
2 district · 28 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 Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield · Mazzilli v. Acc. & Cas. Ins. Co. of Winterthur · Ruvolo v. American Casualty Co. · Haugan v. Home Indemnity Company · Federal Insurance Company v. PAT Homes, Inc.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The insurance company’s] concept of the exception to exclusion (a) is that it applies only where the alleged defective workmanship causes property damage not excluded under some other provision of the policy. Thus, it recognizes coverage under the policy for a property damage claim arising out of a breach of the warranty referred to in the exception. It contends, however, that a breach of warranty claim otherwise within the exception is clearly excluded by exclusion (o). We cannot accept that contention, for to do so would produce the anomalous situation of a provision in the policy which takes away coverage expressly granted in another provision. We do not deem it necessary to construe exclusion (o) in its relation to exclusion (a), as did the court in Federal Ins. Co. v. P.A.T. Homes, [ 113 Ariz. 136 , 547 P.2d 1050 (1976)]. In our view, the coexistence of the two provisions creates, at the very least, an ambiguity which must be resolved in favor of the insured so as to provide coverage. To paraphrase that which we said in Elcar Mobile Homes, Inc. v. D. K. Baxter, Inc., 66 N.J.Super. 478, 485 , 169 A.2d 509, 512 (App.Div.1961), if the insurer here deemed it necessary to make plain beyond dispute that claims for breach of the warranty contained in the exception to exclusion (a) were to be excluded, ‘it is a mystery to us why the insurer did not say so in simple language. It is not a concept difficult to express.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This insurance does not apply: (a) to liability assumed by the insured under any contract or agreement except an incidental contract; but this exclusion does not apply to a warranty of fitness or quality of the named insured’s products or a warranty that work performed by or on behalf of the named insured will be done in a workmanlike manner; ¡fc Sfc SjC ‡ * # (o) to property damage to work performed by or on behalf of the named insured arising out of the work or any portion thereof, or out of materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection therewith; * * * ” (Our emphasis)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“would pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of ... property damage to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence....”
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.