34 Ill. 2d 310 - Carroll v. Preferred Risk Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 30 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““good faith on the part of the applicant because of the peculiar character of the insurance contract. The applicant has an obligation imposed by law to notify the insurer of any changed condition materially affecting the risk during the pendency of the application for insurance.” (Carroll, 34 Ill. 2d at 312 .)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 234 Ill. App. 3d 792 - Northern Life Insurance v. Ippolito Real Estate Partnership · 11 Ill. App. 3d 802 - Western Fire Insurance v. Moss

2. ““Palmer v. Bull Dog Auto Insurance Ass’n, 294 Ill. 287 , involved a similar problem. In Bull Dog the plaintiff applied for an automobile theft policy and sent the application and premium to the insurer. The loss occurred, as in the case at bar, after the application was mailed, but prior to acceptance by the insurer. The court held that the loss was not covered by the policy, stating at pages 291-292: ‘Where a loss occurring before the risk attaches is known only to the applicant and he obtains a policy without disclosing the fact of loss the policy is void, even though the contract be given a date prior to the loss.” (I Joyce on Insurance, 2d ed., sec. 107.) a # # While Mimms executed the application for insurance on June 22, the day of the fatal accident, the application was not received by Adams until June 25. Pursuant to ordinary contract principles, the application did not become an offer until it was communicated to the offeree, Adams, more than two days after the undisclosed fatal accident. It is essential to the existence of an offer that the proposal by the offerer be made known to the offeree. (Restatement of Contracts, § 23; 17 C.J.S. Contracts, sec. 38.) On the application Mimms answered in the negative to the question, ‘Has the applicant or any other person been involved in an automobile accident while operating any private passenger type automobile resulting in any damage to any property, including his own, or in bodily injury or death, during the preceding 36 m”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oster v. Riley · 11 Ill. App. 3d 802 - Western Fire Insurance v. Moss

3. ““even the most unsophisticated person must know that in answering the questionnaire and submitting it to the insurer he is furnishing the data on the basis of which the company will decide whether, by issuing a policy, it wishes to insure him. If, while the company deliberates, he discovers facts which make portions of his application no longer true, the most elementary spirit of fair dealing would seem to require him to make a full disclosure. If he fails to do so the company may, despite its acceptance of the application, decline to issue a policy, [citation] or if a policy has been issued, it has a valid defense to a suit upon it. [Citation.]””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 234 Ill. App. 3d 792 - Northern Life Insurance v. Ippolito Real Estate Partnership · 11 Ill. App. 3d 802 - Western Fire Insurance v. Moss