194 W. Va. 129 - Miller v. Lemon’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably 200 W. Va. 570 - Kronjaeger v. Buckeye Union Insurance (1997), STATE BANCORP v. US Fidelity and Guar. (1997)
24 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 153 W. Va. 813 - Keffer v. Prudential Insurance Company of America · 183 W. Va. 556 - State Automobile Mutual Insurance v. Youler · 176 W. Va. 430 - Soliva v. Shand, Morahan & Co., Inc. · 188 W. Va. 81 - Russell v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance · 181 W. Va. 460 - Deel v. Sweeney
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Anti-stacking language in an automobile insurance policy is valid and enforceable as to uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage where the insured purchases a single insurance policy to cover two or more vehicles and receives a multi-car discount on the total policy premium. If no multi-car discount for uninsured or under-insured motorist coverage is apparent on the declarations page of the policy, the parties must either agree or the court must find that such a discount was given. In such event, the insured is not entitled to stack the coverages of the multiple vehicles and may only recover up to the policy limits set forth in the single policy endorsement.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]here the provisions of an insurance policy contract are clear and unambiguous they are not subject to judicial construction or interpretation, but full effect will be given to the plain meaning intended.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]t is easily discernible that the reason a single policy was issued rather than multiple policies was that the premium for un-derinsured motorist coverage on the second vehicle was set at a lesser rate than the premium for the first vehicle. Furthermore, because of the multi-car discount given, it is obvious that the insured appel-lee bargained for only one policy and only one underinsured motorist coverage endorsement. This multi-car discount is of particular import since it signifies that the respondent was receiving a reduced rate on his automobile insurance in return for taking out only one policy instead of two. Meanwhile, the insurer was assuming an increased risk of injury which could occur while the insured was occupying the second vehicle as consideration for the second premium. The insured was therefore receiving the benefit of that which he bargained for and should not receive more.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.