United States v. Patryas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 federal appellate · 6 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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[n]o legal obstacle prevents parties, if they so desire, from entering into contracts of insurance to protect against loss that may possibly have already occurred”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance · GenCorp, Inc. v. American International Underwriters

2. ““This converted policy of insurance provided protection against loss from two causes: namely, death and total permanent disability. A provision making a policy ‘incontestable’ except for certain clearly designated reasons, is wholly meaningless and ineffective if, after proof of the loss insured against, the policy can be contested upon grounds wholly different from those set out in the exception. The object of the provision is to assure the insured that payment on his policy will not be delayed by contests and lawsuits on grounds not saved by the exceptions. Here, it has been established that the veteran is totally and permanently disabled. Yet his policy is contested on the ground that it does not insure against this disability because it existed before the policy was issued. If this defense can be interposed, his policy has never actually protected him against total permanent disability. Since permanent total disability is one of the two risks insured against in the policy, any contest (not based on the exceptions) which may prevent the policyholder’s recovery for such admitted total permanent disability — existing while the policy is in force — is a ‘contest’ forbidden by the ‘incontestable’ provision.” (p. 587.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Norris v. Travelers Insurance

3. “Even with the benefit of scrupulous good faith it is not always easy to determine with complete certainty whether or not total permanent disability exists. This uncertainty may lead an insurer, after his own investigation, and for adequate compensation, to treat unknown past and uncertain prospective disability, upon the same basis. This case is an illustration. Here, the government has never admitted that the veteran is totally and permanently disabled. It not only issued him a policy against such disability—with complete knowledge of his then condition— but in his continued contest has denied that the policy-holder was totally and permanently disabled at any time—before, when, or after the policy was issued. There was also a sharp conflict of evidence on this disputed fact. When a policy of disability insurance is issued after complete examination by insurer and full and fair disclosure by both parties, there is no legal reason why the insurer cannot contract to afford full pro tection against loss resulting from past as well as prospective disability.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Condict