Davis v. De Frank’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Where a ‘no liability’ clause expressly provides that its insurance does not apply to any loss covered by ‘other valid and collectible insurance, whether primary, excess or contingent,’ numerous authorities have held that the insurance company whose policy contains such clause will be absolved from liability in a case where the other policy contains what is designated as an ‘excess clause.’ The rationale for such holding is that the insurer whose policy contains a specific ‘no liability’ clause anticipated the possibility of the existence of an ‘excess’ clause in the policy of a customer of the garage and expressly contracted against liability in that situation. The language of the policy seems to be clear and explicit that the premium reduction in the garage liability policy was predicated upon the excluded risks enumerated. Effect should be given to that language and when that is done, the reason is that Western is not liable. . . (p. 427)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Universal Underwriters Insurance

2. “only if no other valid and collectible insurance, either primary or excess”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 728 F. Supp. 298 - Argonaut Ins. Co., Inc. v. US Fire Ins. Co.