Aetna Ins. v. Jeremiah’s Empirical Analysis
187 F.2d 95 · 1951
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 1991 · most notably Harmon Cable Communications of Nebraska Ltd. Partnership v. Scope Cable Television, Inc. (1991), 137 W. Va. 501 - Oates v. Continental Insurance Co. (1952)
11 federal appellate · 10 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 Northern Assurance Company of London v. Grand View Building Association · Merchants' Planters' Ins. Co. v. Marsh · Automobile Ins. v. Barnes-Manley Wet Wash Laundry Co. · Walker v. Queen Insurance Co.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`A provision forbidding or limiting additional insurance is clearly intended not as prescribing something to be done by the insured but as expressing a condition upon which the company assumes liability; and the law is well settled that, upon the breach of such a condition, there can be no recovery upon the contract in which it is contained. The principle upon which this conclusion rests is elementary in the general law of contracts. See A.L.I. Restatements of Contracts, secs. 250 and 260, and illustration 1 under 260. Applied in the law of insurance, it clearly requires that a provision forbidding or limiting additional insurance be treated as a condition of the policy, breach of which will preclude recovery by the insured. See Kossmehl v. Miller Nat. Ins. Co., 238 Mo. App. 671 , 185 S.W.2d 293 ; Plumley v. Superior Fire Ins. Co., 122 W. Va. 333 , 9 S.E.2d 229 ; Roberts v. London & Lancashire Ins. Co., 282 Ky. 679 , 139 S.W.2d 764 ; Elliott v. Lycoming County Mut. Ins. Co., 66 Pa. 22 , 5 Am.Rep. 323 ; Mitchell v. Lycoming County Mut. Ins. Co., 51 Pa. 402 .'"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"`This entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement indorsed hereon or added hereto, shall be void if the insured now has or shall hereafter make or procure any other contract of insurance, whether valid or not, on property covered in whole or in part by this policy',"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(W)here doubt exists forfeiture will be avoided.”
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.