Travelers Insurance v. Peerless Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Thé trial court concluded that Oregon had the primary liability and that U.S.F. & G. was not liable on its policy until the limits of the Oregon policy were reached. Oregon says that the judgment should have been the other way around. It contends that the U.S.F. & G. policy was primary insurance in this situation and that Oregon is not liable except as to amounts above the limits of the U.S.F. & G. policy. “It is plain that if the provisions of both policies were given full effect, neither insurer would be liable. The parties admit that such a result would produce an unintended absurdity, and each argues that the court must settle upon some way of determining which policy is primary and which secondary. Unfortunately there is no statute and there appear to be no decisions bearing on the subject in the jurisdiction in which the controversy arose, namely, Oregon. “We have examined cases in other jurisdictions cited by counsel where closely similar or substantially identical disputes between insurance companies have arisen. These decisions point in all directions. One group indicates that the policy using the word ‘excess’ is secondary and that containing the language of the Oregon policy is primary. Examples of these decisions are cited on the margin. Their reasoning appears to us completely circular, depending, as it were, on which policy one happens to read first. Other cases seem to recognize the truth of the matter, namely, that the problem is little different from that in”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 228 F. Supp. 494 - Globe Indemnity Co. v. Insurance & Surety Co.

2. ““It is agreed that such insurance as is afforded by the policy for Bodily Injury Liability, and for Property Damage Liability applies with respect to the use of any automobile or truck by the named insured, only, subject to the following provisions: ^ # # & “2. The insurance does not apply: (a) to any automobile owned by the named insured. * * * “3. The insurance shall be excess insurance over any other valid and collectible insurance available to the insured, either as an insured under a policy applicable with respect to- any such automobile or otherwise.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Motor Vehicle Casualty Co. v. LeMars Mutual Insurance

3. “If the insured has other insurance against a loss covered by this policy the company shall not be liable under this policy for a greater proportion of such loss than the applicable limit of liability stated in the declarations bears to the total applicable limit of liability of all valid and collectible insurance against such loss.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co.