Lee-Lipstreu v. Chubb Group of Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 2 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Application of the direct action provision of § 1332(c)(1) [here] ignores a fundamental component of a Scott-Pontzer claim — that the entire suit rests on the conclusion that the employee is the insured under the policy. Thus, in a Scott-Pontzer claim, the insured sues her own insurance carrier. The insured obviously is not joined as a party-defendant because the insured is the plaintiff. Applying the direct action provision to a dispute solely between an insured and her own insurance company would result in an absurdity-federal courts would never hear common insurance disputes because the insured and the insurer, the plaintiff and the defendant, would always be considered citizens of the same state. We recognize that the direct action provision applies in certain situations involving insureds and insurers, but we conclude that it does not apply here.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ljuljdjuraj v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Davis v. Owners Insurance

2. “that the `parking attendant' provision in the Federal policy,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clark v. Chubb Group of Insurance

3. “did not create automobile liability coverage”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clark v. Chubb Group of Insurance