Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Phoenix National Bank & Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 federal appellate · 9 district · 18 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Petitioner’s undertaking “to indemnify ... and hold harmless” the respondent from any loss sustained by reason of the specified payments, contained no words indicating an intention to destroy the indemnitor’s usual privilege of subrogation to the indemnitee’s right to recover from any who are liable to it for the loss. That privilege was a necessary incident to petitioner’s contract, for only by resort to it could the character of the contract as indemnity be preserved. It is both the object and the justification of the subrogation that it makes exact indemnity the measure of the liability____ ... [Respondent was still under a duty not to impair the rights which petitioner, upon payment of its obligation, might enforce against third persons. The failure to observe that duty, by stating an account which relinquished all claims against its depositor, ... released the petitioner from the liability which had already accrued____ To hold that respondent could, without affecting its indemnity, relieve its rights against those who might be liable for its loss would be to hold, by a parity of reasoning, that respondent could enforce them with a similar lack of effect upon its right to recover from petitioner. In either case petitioner’s contract would be converted from one of indemnity, as stipulated, into an unqualified obligation to repay to the bank the amounts which it was induced to pay by the forgeries. Id. at 214-15 , 52 S.Ct. at 331 (emphasis supplied).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 586 F. Supp. 139 - SEC. Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. Continental Ins.

2. ““Petitioner’s undertaking “to indemnify * * * and hold hai*mless” the respondent from any loss sustained by reason of the specified payments, contained no words indicating an intention to destroy the in-demnitor’s usual privilege of subro-gation to the indemnitee’s right to recover from any who are liable to it for the loss. That privilege was a necessary incident to petitioner’s contract, for only by resort to it could the character of the contract as indemnity be preserved * * * See Standard Marine Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Scottish Metropolitan Assurance Co., Ltd. 283 U.S. 284 [ 51 S.Ct. 371 , 75 L.Ed. 1037 ]; United States v. American Tobacco Co., 166 U.S. 468 [ 17 S.Ct. 619 , 41 L.Ed. 1081 ]; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 139 U.S. 223, 235 [ 11 S.Ct. 554 , 35 L.Ed. 154 ]; Hall & Long v. Nashville & C. R. Co., 13 Wall. 367 [ 20 L.Ed. 594 ]; Jones v. Bacon, 145 N.Y. 446, 450 ; 40 N.E. 216 .” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dawson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland

3. ““It is both the object and the justification of subrogation that it makes exact indemnity the measure of the liability.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Frank C. Sparks Co. v. Huber Baking Co.