270 N.J. Super. 241 - Daus v. Marble’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
4 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably Marquis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1998), 292 N.J. Super. 365 - Reliance Ins. Co. v. Armstrong (1996)
4 district · 28 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 97 N.J. Super. 501 - McDonald v. Home Ins. Co. · Salem Group v. Oliver · Wunschel v. City of Jersey City · Eule v. Eule Motor Sales · 244 N.J. Super. 245 - Sinopoli v. North River Ins. Co.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in the absence of a specific definition in an insurance policy, the words must be interpreted in accordance with their ordinary, plain and usual meaning.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he negligent entrustment or supervision cannot be isolated from the ownership and operation of the insured automobile. In contrast, the serving of alcohol to a minor does not depend on the insured's ownership of a motor vehicle or its entrustment to another. One need not own a motor vehicle to serve alcohol to another. [ Salem Group, supra, 128 N.J. at 5 , 607 A. 2d 138 .] In Moraca, supra, a negligent supervision claim was made against the insured, Yodice, for injuries caused by the alleged reckless driving of her son, Daniel. Id. 244 N.J.Super. at 7 , 581 A. 2d 510 . Allstate denied coverage based on its exclusion for accidents "arising out of" the use of "any motorized land vehicle." Id. at 8 , 581 A. 2d 510 . We held that the homeowner's insurance policy exclusion applied to claims against Yodice for damages based on negligent supervision. As noted earlier, that holding was impliedly approved by the Supreme Court in Salem Group, supra, 128 N.J. at 5 , 607 A. 2d 138 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Supreme Court made it clear that the question of coverage for the insured turned on the peculiar facts of the case and the nature of the coverage afforded the insured. The fifth count of the complaint clearly alleged social host liability against the insured for supplying alcoholic beverages to Oliver. With respect to that count and the homeowners'[] policy, the Court observed: No one disputes that insurers are generally obligated to defend their insureds on social host claims. The critical question is whether the insurer can avoid that obligation because a separate excluded risk, the operation of an all-terrain vehicle (ATV), constitutes an additional cause of the injury. We find that the insurer remains obligated to defend the covered risk. It may not avoid that obligation simply because the operation of an ATV constitutes an additional cause of the injury. [ Salem Group, supra, 128 N.J. at 3 , 607 A. 2d 138 (emphasis added).]”
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.