Bollinger v. Nuss’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 51 district · 63 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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the strength of the injured claimant’s case on the issues of liability and damages; (2) attempts by the insurer to induce the insured to contribute to a settlement; (3) failure of the insurer to properly investigate the circumstances so as to ascertain the evidence against the insured; (4) the insurer’s rejection of advice of its own attorney or agent; (5) failure of the insurer to inform the insured of a compromise offer; (6) the amount of financial risk to which each party is exposed in the event of a refusal to settle; (7) the fault of the insured in inducing the insurer’s rejection of the compromise offer by misleading it as to the facts; and (8) any other factors tending to establish or negate bad faith on the part of the insurer.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Roberts v. Printup · 19 Kan. App. 2d 971 - Levier v. Koppenheffer

2. “'On the one hand, [the insurer's] interests lie in minimizing the amount to be paid; on the other, the insured's interests, which the insurer is supposedly defending, lie in keeping recovery within policy limits, so that he will suffer no personal financial loss. The conflict becomes particularly acute where there is an offer of settlement approximating policy limits. The insured's desire to avoid the risk of a large judgment by settling within the limits of the policy, regardless of the merits of the claim, would compel him, were he in charge of settlement negotiations, to accept the offer. The insurer's interests, on the other hand, are prompted by its own evaluation of the liability aspects of the litigation and a desire not to expose itself to payments which do not adequately reflect the dangers that might be involved in pursuing the case to trial. When the settlement offer approaches policy limits, the insurer has a great deal less to risk from going to trial than does the insured, because the extent of its potential liability is fixed.' " 214 Kan. at 238 , 519 P.2d 634 (quoting Bollinger v. Nuss , 202 Kan. 326 , 449 P.2d 502 [1969] ). "[D]ecisions [from other jurisdictions] run the gamut from the extreme, that the insurer is entitled to regard its own interests as paramount, to the opposite, that the insured's interests must be * given priority.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Geer v. Eby · Stetler v. Fosha

3. ““. . . Something more than mere error of judgment is necessary to constitute bad faith. The company cannot be required to predict with exactitude the results of a trial; nor does the company act in bad faith where it honestly believes, and has cause to believe, that any probable liability will be less than policy limits. . . .” (p. 341.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stetler v. Fosha · Rector v. Husted