Berkshire Mutual Insurance v. Moffett’s Empirical Analysis
378 F.2d 1007 · 1967
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Kestenbaum v. Falstaff Brewing Corp. (1975), United States v. Nall (1971)
33 federal appellate · 8 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 Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Gunning v. Cooley · Claflin v. Commonwealth Insurance · Chaachou v. American Central Insurance · Jose Rivera Soler & Co. v. United Firemen's Insurance
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.
“The weight of such testimony is, of course, affected by the owner's knowledge of circumstances which affect value, and as an interested witness, it is for the jury to evaluate the credibility of his testimony.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to establish to what extent an insurer is liable where “actual cash value” is the yardstick used to determine damages, it is necessary to determine what criteria is to be used to define this phrase. In New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Diaks, Fla. 1954, 69 So.2d 786 , the Supreme Court indicates that in these matters Florida will adhere to the so-called “Broad Evidence Rule.” Under this rule, any evidence logically tending to establish a correct estimate of the value of the damaged or destroyed property may be considered by the trier of facts to determine “actual cash value” at the time of loss. Where, as in this case, evidence of the wholesale cost of the destroyed merchandise is presented, it constitutes relevant evidence of actual cash value. Therefore, we think the trial judge correctly denied appellants’ motion for new trial made on the ground that there was no evidence of actual cash value, (emphasis supplied)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an overestimate of the value of goods lost in a fire, an error in judgment with respect to fixing a value, a mistake, or an inadvertence, will not render an insurance contract void. Since reasonable men may differ as to the values which they place on particular objects, the rule voiding a policy of insurance will not apply in its severity unless the proof of the false swearing was such that no other conclusion can be drawn than that a purposeful misrepresentation was intended.”
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.