American Auto. Ins. v. Fulcher’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. . . the Virginia decisions make it clear that the statutes applicable to the present controversy, being remedial in nature, are to be liberally construed to subserve the public policy manifest therein. It is also evident that, to support liability predicated upon implied permission, it is not necessary that the owner of the automobile be aware of the identity of the person operating it; or know of the particular use being made of it at the time of the accident.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance v. Janes · National Grange Mutual Liability Co. v. Metroka

2. ““The instant action, unlike that in the State Court, is not one which seeks to establish the vicarious personal liability of a principal upon a theory of common law agency. The-case at bar is a simple action on a contract, and to recover against the-defendant insurance company, it is not incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove an affirmative consent on the part of Fred Green [owner] to the-use of his car, or that the car was being used on his business. The-only issue before the District Court was whether or not at the time of' the accident, George Green was driving Fred Green’s car with his permission, express or implied, within the terms of the contract and the meaning of the applicable Virginia statutes. -x- -x- * -x- * “It is clear that the issues in the-two actions here in question are not identical. The evidence available to-the plaintiff in the State Court was insufficient to show the high degree of relationship between owner and driver amounting to agency. In the District Court agency was not an issue, and the burden of proof on the plaintiff to show permission, express or implied, which was the only essential to a recovery under the contract of insurance, was considerably reduced. Consequently, the very same evidence which proved inadequate to establish the personal liability of Fred Green [owner] in the •State Court, might well prove sufficient to fix liability upon the defendant insurance company in the District Court. ■**■***» “ * * * Plaintiff here does not seek to ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Simms

3. “It is also true, in the case of liability insurance, that the insurer is liable for the payment of interest even though such payment makes the total amount due more than the amount limited by the policy. Cudahy Packing Co. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., C.C., 132 F. 623 ; Rumford Falls Paper Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 92 Me. 574 , 43 A. 503 . In Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Employers’ Indemnity Co., 161 N.C. 19, 23 , 76 S.E. 536, 537-538 , where an insurer was held liable for interest and costs in excess of the limits of the policy, the court, commenting upon the nature of this additional liability, said: “The interest in question is awarded by law as damages for non-payment of money when due. * * * The interest in question does not represent any liability on account of or for the accident or the policy, but is a liability imposed by law for the delay of the defendant in paying the judgment which, as between the parties, it was legally obligated to pay.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 360 F. Supp. 929 - Snider v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.