17 Ill. 2d 242 - River Valley Cartage Co. v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 2 district · 79 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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Courts have divided on the meaning of the phrase ‘all interest accruing after entry of judgment,’ Some have read it to limit liability for interest to that part of the judgment for which the insurer is responsible. [Citations] Others have not. [Citations] It might be enough to say that the ambiguity evidenced by this division of opinion should be construed against the insurer. [Citation] But we believe that there are other and stronger reasons for holding that the phrase creates liability for interest on the entire judgment. “In the first place, the insurer’s language compels such a conclusion. The phrase referring to interest uses the term ‘judgment’ without qualification while in the same clause the phrase limiting the duration of the liability for interest refers to ‘such part of the judgment as does not exceed the limit of the company’s liability thereon.’ Obviously the insurer knew how to qualify the term ‘judgment’ to achieve the result that it urges. It did not do so. “In addition, the realities of the relationship between the insurer and the insured argue against the insurer’s interpretation. Under the terms of the policy the insurer has complete control of any litigation from which it might incur liability. The insured can not settle with the plaintiff without releasing the insurer from its obligation. Any delay that may cause the accumulation of interest is thus the responsibility of the insurer. And until it has discharged its obligations under the policy it shoul”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dibenedetto v. Estate of Dibenedetto · 132 Ill. 2d 79 - Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Aetna Insurance

2. ““The question must be appraised in terms of the rights of the insured against the insurer, because by this garnishment proceeding the plaintiff seeks to reach the indebtedness of the insurer to the insured. A valid tender by the debtor must be ‘sufficient to cover all that the creditor then has a right to recover, whether of debt, interest or costs.’” 17 Ill.2d at 246 , 161 N.E.2d at 104 . (citation omitted)”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mutual of Enumclaw v. Harvey · Lake County Forest Preserve District v. Vernon Hills Development Corp.

3. ““The insurance policy under inspection is a contract, and the standard of interpretation depends on the character of the contract. We are here dealing with an automobile accident indemnity policy, and we think that a reasonable degree of certainty is attained if words are interpreted according to a standard not necessarily peculiar to the parties, but customary among persons of their kind under the existing circumstances. 3 Williston on Contracts (Eev. Ed.), Section 608. “As we view the language of the contract, we believe that a person purchasing the protection afforded therein would think only that his protection limit was five thousand dollars, plus the payment of ‘all expenses incurred by the company,’ all costs taxed against the insured in any lawsuit covered by the policy, and interest accruing on the five thousand-dollar limitation of the policy after an entry of judgment against him until there has been paid into court such part of ‘such judgment [including the interest] as does not exceed the limit of the company’s liability thereon’ — to wit, five thousand dollars plus interest thereon.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 Ohio App. 2d 385 - Coventry v. Steve Koren, Inc. · 132 Ill. 2d 79 - Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Aetna Insurance