Vernon Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Sharp’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 5 district · 179 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 258 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Huff v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (1977), Spencer v. Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance (1980)
20 federal appellate · 5 district · 179 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 9 Cal. 3d 566 - Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance · Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Company · 10 Cal. App. 3d 376 - Fletcher v. Western National Life Insurance · Baker v. State · Ayr-Way Stores, Inc. v. Chitwood Ex Rel. Chitwood
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 258 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it appears from the evidence as a whole that a serious wrong, tortious in nature, has been committed, but the wrong does not conveniently fit the confines of a pre-determined tort . . . (and) That the public interest will be served by the deterrent effect punitive damages will have upon future conduct of the wrongdoer and parties similarly situated.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Appellants acknowledge the foregoing rule allowing punitive damages, but maintain that their conduct in dealing with their insured reflects nothing more than a legitimate exercise of an insurer's 'right to disagree' as to the amount of recovery, citing Meridian Mutual Insurance Co. v. McMullen (1972), 152 Ind.App. 141 , 282 N.E.2d 558 . It is evident that the exercise of this right may directly result in the intentional infliction of temporal damage, including the damage of interference with an insured's business (which an insured will undoubtedly consider to be oppressive). The infliction of this damage has generally been regarded as privileged, and not compensa-ble, for the simple reason that it is worth more to society than its costs, i.e., the insurer is permitted to dispute its liability in good faith because of the prohibitive social costs which would make claims nondisputable."”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“... an act of cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction or excessive use of authority.”
5 later decisions 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.