St Paul Fire Marine Insurance Company v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company Tig Cna’s Empirical Analysis
365 F.3d 263 · 2004
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2022
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 13 Cal. 3d 622 - Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. v. Pylon, Inc. · Rossignol v. Voorhaar · Acosta-Esquivel v. United States · Buchanan v. Doe · Hitachi Credit America Corp. v. Signet Bank
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[The Operator’s insurers] argue that the [Owner’s insurance] policies must respond first to satisfy the settlement because the [management agreement] requires [the Owner] to indemnify [the Operator] .... In this regard, [the Operator’s insurers] rely on cases that give priority to indemnification agreements between the insured[s] in assessing the respective obligations of the insurers and hold that such agreements may prevent the indemnitee’s insurer from being liable for a settlement arising from a covered loss, notwithstanding the existence of an ‘other insurance’ clause in the indemnitor’s insurance policy .... “We agree with [the Operator’s insurers] .... [W]e conclude that the indemnification provisions control the allocation of liability between the insurers in this case because it results in [the Owner] having responsibility for the [Operator’s] share[] of the settlement. . . . [f] . . . [][] “[A]ll indications are that most, if not all, jurisdictions to have faced the question of whether an indemnification agreement could relieve particular insurers of an obligation to pay . . . have answered in the affirmative. . . . “[W]e believe that the cases and principles relied on in Wal-Mart[, supra, 292 F.3d 583 ,] . . . represent general practices and the majority position on the respective issues ....’’ (St. Paul, supra, 365 F.3d at pp. 270-272 [applying Virginia law].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We reject [the Owner’s insurer’s] contention; the record evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the settled liability . . . arose from acts or omissions on the order of ordinary negligence, for which [the Owner] is obligated under the [Owner-Operator agreement] to provide indemnification [to the Operator]. ... [][].. . [f] “. . . [The Owner’s insurer] contends that the lack of any judicial determination that [the accident] resulted only from ordinary negligence prevents any classification of the settlement liability for indemnification purposes. But [the Owner’s insurer] cites no authority for this proposition, and our independent review indicates that the weight of authorities would allow an indemnification claim to rely on a settled liability.” (St. Paul, supra, 365 E3d at pp. 273-274.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n indemnity agreement between the insureds or a contract with an indemnification clause ... may shift an entire loss to a particular insurer notwithstanding the existence of an `other insurance' clause in its policy.”
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.