231 F. Supp. 2d 958 - Johnson v. Marciniak’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Johnson [employee] suggests the simple answer, here, is that he did not receive any workers compensation benefits. However, Grinnell [CGL insurer] counters that the policy excludes "obligations" under a workers compensation law. Dave's [employer] had the obligation to procure workers compensation coverage, and as a non-complying employer Dave's exposed itself to a civil action by Johnson for personal injury. The workers compensation clause precludes coverage for liability derived from an obligation which should have been handled by a workers compensation claim. . . . . ... Dave's should not be rewarded for failure to obey workers compensation law. Johnson's cause of action against Dave's was made possible only because of the failure to obtain workers compensation insurance. The policy clearly excluded obligations under workers compensation; if Dave's would have obtained workers compensation this claim would be barred.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. J & S Exch., Inc. · Brown v. Indiana Insurance Co.

2. “exclusion in the insured's CGL policy did not apply because the tort action did not seek workers' compensation benefits. Johnson [employee] suggests the simple answer, here, is that he did not receive any workers compensation benefits. However, Grinnell [CGL insurer] counters that the policy excludes”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Indiana Insurance Co.