294 N.J. Super. 569 - Schmidt v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
4 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably American Motorists Insurance v. L-C-A Sales Co. (1998), Schmidt v. Smith (1998)
4 district · 26 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 41 Cal. 3d 903 - Producers Dairy Delivery Co. v. Sentry Insurance · Lehmann v. Toys 'R' US, Inc. · Voorhees v. Preferred Mutual Insurance · Burd v. Sussex Mutual Insurance Company · Sparks v. St. Paul Insurance
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“arising out of and in the course of his employment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The employers liability insurance here “applies to bodily injury by accident or bodily injury by disease,” which arises “out of and in the course of the injured employee’s employment” by the insured. Under the policy USF[ & ]G agreed to pay “all sums [PAV] legally must pay as damages because of bodily injury to [PAVs] employees, provided the bodily injury is covered by this Employers Liability Insurance.” The pertinent exclusions to the policy are as follows: C. Exclusions. This insurance does not cover: 4. Any obligation imposed by a workers compensation, occupational disease, unemployment compensation, or disability benefits law, or any similar law; 5. Bodily injury intentionally caused or aggravated by you; 7. Damages arising out of the discharge of, coercion of, or discrimination against any employee in violation of law. Exclusion C7 was amended and replaced with the following exclusion: This insurance does not cover: 7. Damages arising out of coercion, demotion, evaluation, reassignment, discipline, defamation, harassment, humiliation, discrimination against or termination of any employee, or any personnel practices, policies, acts or omissions. [ 294 N.J.Super. at 581 , 684 A.2d 66 (footnote omitted).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schmidt v. Smith“While [USF & G] maintains that the language of Exclusion C7 is clear and unambiguously applies to sexual harassment claims under the [New Jersey Law Against Discrimination], it appears to us that the exclusion in this circumstance is all but clear. This is so in light of the fact that the ... C7 Exclusion does not specifically exclude coverage for vicarious liability resulting from hostile workplace sexual harassment. 8”
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.