4 Smith & H. 301 - Stovall v. New York Indemnity Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 federal appellate · 6 district · 91 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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[T]he automobile covered by the policy is delivered to another for use, with the permission of the owner or insured, his subsequent use of it is with the permission of the insured, within the meaning of the policy, regardless of whether the automobile is driven to a place or for a purpose not within the contemplation of the insured when he parted with possession. "The facts stated hereinabove bring the driver of the automobile at the time of the accident within the protection of the policy, as herein construed, as an `additional assured.' His use of the car at the time of the accident followed the delivery of possession to him by his employer, acting through the sales manager."”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Snyder v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. · Lambright v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh

2. ““B. The words additional assured (s) used in the insuring agreements shall mean (a) any person(s) while riding in or legally operating an automobile insured hereunder, or (b) any person, firm, or corporation legally responsible for the operation thereof, providing such use or operation is with the permission of the named assured, or, if the named assured is an individual, with the permission of an adult member of his family other than a chauffeur or domestic servant.” -”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Preferred Acc. Ins. v. Barker · Haeuser v. &198tna Casualty Surety Co.

3. “"Does this language mean the permission to use the car or the permission to use the car in a specified manner and for a specified purpose? These are the two constructions which confront us, and we are to determine which is the correct one * * *. "The insurer desired to obtain insurance, and for this object, it extended in its policy the benefits of the policy to the guest riding in the insured's automobile, provided the guest was riding with the permission of the insured. If the insurer had intended by this proviso to restrict the permission to its specifically named objects, it would, in each case, be necessary to make inquiry into the purpose and extent of the permission, while by specific provision the insurer could readily have done this and avoided the inquiry. The result would have been a policy less acceptable to prospective insured. It would have invited in most cases an investigation as to whether the permission granted had been violated in a particular case or not. In place of a certain provision in the policy of definite meaning it would have inserted a provision breeding uncertainty, inviting litigation, and making the defense of a departure from the permission an available and often used defense. This is exactly what the courts and Legislature have frowned upon — uncertain and ambiguous provisions in contracts of insurance under which insurers seek an escape from the obligation of paying the insurance indemnity contracted for. "The fact that the insurer in this c”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Snyder v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. · 121 So. 2d 470 - Ball v. Inland Mutual Insurance Co.