182 Mich. App. 425 - Gibbs v. Armovit’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We conclude that this clause is not ambiguous. Rather, the clause clearly instructs that [the insurer] will not pay more than $200,000 for any claim or suit, which is the minimum amount under the policy, nor more than $600,000 in any one year, which is the maximum amount, regardless of how many separate claims are filed against Dr. Armovit. Since plaintiffs have filed only one suit against Dr. Armovit, their recovery from [the insurer] is plainly limited to $200,000.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 473 F. Supp. 2d 776 - Western World Insurance v. Lula Belle Stewart Center, Inc.

2. “is consistent with an insured’s purpose in obtaining malpractice insurance, which is to lessen the burden of liability which might arise from the insured’s negligence.” (Gibbs, 182 Mich. App. at 428 , 452 N.W.2d at 840 .) The court went on to conclude that in light of this emphasis on liability and damages,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 266 Ill. App. 3d 781 - Hartford Casualty Insurance v. Medical Protective Co. of Fort Wayne

3. “[T]he various [consortium] claims of family members are merely derivative of the injured party's right of recovery, and thus may not be maintained as separate claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 572 So. 2d 850 - McCoy v. Colonial Baking Co. Inc.