Ruby v. Midwestern Indemnity Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance (2002), Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp. v. Employers Insurance (2000)
14 federal appellate · 60 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 129 Wis. 2d 3 - Vogt v. Schroeder · Buckeye Union Insurance v. Price · Frey v. Independence Fire & Casualty Co. · James v. Michigan Mutual Insurance · Bogan v. Progressive Casualty 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] provision in an insurance policy requiring `prompt' notice to the insurer requires notice within a reasonable time in light of all the surrounding facts and circumstances.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“[u]nreasonable delay in the giving of notice”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Progressive's subrogation right, as previously demonstrated, is based not only upon the words of its contract, but much prior case law and the specific statutory expression of the General Assembly. As such, a right of subrogation, the protection of which is a precondition to underinsured motorist coverage, is a full and present right in and of itself wholly independent of whether a later judgment obtained by use of such right will be reduced to collectionfrom the tortfeasor. Such right constitutes a 'real and existing' right at any time the injured insured is in a position to release a liable party from its liability. It is, therefore, both just and reasonable that an insurer require, as a precondition to coverage, not that such subrogation rights will result in reimbursement to the insurer, but that the injured party not compromise with the tortfeasor in such a way as to destroy the insurer's subrogation right. Such compromise clearly prejudices the present subrogation right of the injured party's insurer. "Accordingly, under the reasonable terms of the parties' own contract, the Bogans have failed to meet the crucial precondition of protecting Progressive's subrogation rights. By executing a release which precluded the insurer from exercising its subrogation rights, the Bogans materially breached the insurance contract. Progressive is therefore discharged from its obligation to provide underinsured motorist coverage." (Emphasis in original.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.