Hetzel v. Clarkin’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably 205 W. Va. 519 - DeVane v. Kennedy (1999), Oglesby v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (1992)
42 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 52 Ill. App. 3d 237 - Lucas v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund · 90 Wash. 2d 118 - Prutzman v. Armstrong · Hickerson v. Protective Nat. Ins. Co. · Febert v. Upland Mutual Insurance · Billeaudeau v. Lemoine
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The purpose of this act is to provide a mechanism for the payment of covered claims under certain insurance policies, to avoid excessive delay in payment and to avoid financial loss to claimants or policyholders because of the insolvency of an insurer, to assist in the detection and prevention of insurer insolvencies, and to provide an association to assess the cost of such protection among insurers. This act shall be liberally construed to effect such purpose which shall constitute an aid and guide to interpretation."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Any person having a claim against an insurer under any provision in an insurance policy other than a policy of an insolvent insurer which is also a covered claim shall be required to exhaust first his right under such policy. Any amount payable on a covered claim under this act shall be reduced by the amount of any recovery under such insurance policy." K.S.A. 40-2910(a).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"`The statutory purpose is to place claimants in the same position that they would have been in if the liability insurer had not become insolvent. [Citation omitted.] The Act states that the Fund is intended to protect claimants against financial loss because of the insolvency of insurance companies. The difference between the amount of the insolvent insurer's policy limits and the amount paid to claimant by his own insurer is made up by the Fund. To permit a greater recovery than would have occurred had the insurance company remained solvent would both extend the Act beyond its purpose and offend public policy by giving the Act an interpretation which results in a windfall judgment.'" 244 Kan. at 704 , 772 P.2d 800 (quoting Lucas, 52 Ill.App.3d at 239 , 10 Ill.Dec. 81 , 367 N.E.2d 469 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.