J. G. v. Wangard’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably 49 Cal. 4th 315 - Minkler v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America (2010), Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. White (2009)
21 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 119 Wis. 2d 722 - Kremers-Urban Co. v. American Employers Insurance Co. · American Family Mutual Insurance v. American Girl, Inc. · Folkman v. Quamme · 169 Wis. 2d 310 - Elliott v. Donahue · Chacon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
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.
“We ... conclude that Great Northern and Pacific’s use of the phrase “any covered person” in the policies’ intentional acts exclusions, like the phrase “any insured” ... unambiguously precludes coverage for all insureds. The express language of the two homeowner’s policies in question broadly excludes from coverage “any damages arising out of an act intended by any covered person to cause personal injury or property damage.” (emphasis added.) Without considering whether [wife’s] negligent conduct was itself “intentional,” ... it is clear that J.G.’s and R.G.’s alleged damages arose out of [husband’s] intentional wrongful conduct. For this reason, the exclusion plainly bars coverage as to Steven and to Deborah if, as is undisputed, J.G. and R.G.’s personal injury damages arose out of Steven’s intentional sexual contact with J.G.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he average person purchasing homeowner's insurance would cringe at the very suggestion that [the person] was paying for such coverage. And certainly [the person] would not want to share that type of risk with other homeowner's policyholders.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“unambiguous, even when read in context with the severability clause in the policy”); Paylor, 2008 WL 4605304 , at (separation of insureds provision does not affect exclusions using phrase”
1 later decision 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.