Commercial Union Insurance Company v. Flagship Marine Services Inc Sea Tow of Lee County Brisotti & Silkworth Inc Commercial Union Insurance Company’s Empirical Analysis
190 F.3d 26 · 1999
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Finance One Public Co. v. Lehman Bros. Special Financing, Inc. (2005), Duane Reade Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance (2005)
11 federal appellate · 10 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 Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America · Wilburn Boat Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company · Knight v. U.S. Fire Insurance · Ingersoll Milling Machine Co. v. M/V Bodena · Advance Watch Company, Limited v. Kemper National Insurance Company, the Travelers Indemnity Company of America, Cross-Appellee
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In all areas of insurance other than maritime insurance, an insured’s breach of warranty does not “avoid an insurance contract or defeat recovery thereunder unless such breach materially increases the risk of loss, damage, or injury within the coverage of the contract.” Id. § 3106(b). In other words, if an insured breaches a warranty that is collateral to the risk that is the primary concern of the contract, the insured will not be precluded from recovery. This is generally not the rule in maritime insurance contracts. Under the federal rule and the law of most states, warranties in maritime insurance contracts must be strictly complied with, even if they are collateral to the primary risk that is the subject of the contract, if the insured is to recover. See Buglass at 27-28, 34; Patrick J.S. Griggs, Coverage, Warranties, Concealment, Disclosures, Exclusions, Misrepresentations, and Bad Faith, 66 Tul. L.Rev. 423, 431-32 (1991). The rule of strict compliance with warranties in marine insurance contracts stems from the recognition that it is peculiarly difficult for marine insurers to assess their risk, such that insurers must rely on the representations and warranties made by insureds regarding their vessels’ condition and usage. See O’Connor Transp. Co. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 198 A.D. 136 , 189 N.Y.S. 612, 614 (4th Dep’t 1921), aff'd, 233 N.Y. 659 , 135 N.E. 959 (1922); see also In re Balfour MacLaine Int’l Ltd,., 85 F.3d 68 , 80-81 (2d Cir.1996) (discussing maritime doctr”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“no specific federal rule governing construction of maritime insurance contracts”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Tow Endorsement is clear on its face as to the hazards to which it is addressed. It states that ⅛ consideration’ of the rate and premium charged, .:. coverage is hereby provided for the towage of yachts up to 50 feet in length.’ This is an affirmative statement of coverage that necessarily implied that the towage of anything other than ‘yachts up to 50 feet in length’ is not covered. The unambiguous implication of this provision is that, in exchange for [the insurer’s] promise to provide coverage at the agreed-upon rate, [the insured] warranted that it would not tow vessels greater than 50 feet. There can be no doubt that this warranty was breached in this case and that it was material, because the length towed was correlated to the risk assumed by [the insured]. Therefore, under New York or .Florida law, [the insured’s’] breach precludes its recovery under the insurance contract.”
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.