Zurich American Insurance v. Watts Industries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Prohibited uses.—Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party, when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction: (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish—or accepting or offering or promising to accept—a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and (2) conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations regarding the claim, except when offered in a criminal case and the negotiations related to a claim by a public office or agency in the exercise of regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority- (b) Permitted uses.—This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision (a). Examples of permissible purposes include proving a witness’s bias or prejudice; negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Donovan v. Quade

2. “We have already discussed the fact that Watts is bound to arbitrate any dispute that amounts to a differing interpretation than Zurich’s of a given deductible agreement. The district court did not make a finding regarding which deductible agreements the parties dispute. Noting that the court is not to rule on the potential merits of the underlying claims ... we will remand to the district court to identify precisely which agreements the parties’ dispute arises under, and thus under which agreements their obligations and rights may be arbitrated. Id. at 691 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 415 F. Supp. 2d 887 - Zurich American Insurance v. Watts Industries, Inc.

3. “The balance is especially likely to tip in favor of admitting evidence when the settlement communications at issue arise out of a dispute distinct from the one for which the evidence is being offered.”); Fiberglass Insulators, Inc. v. Dupuy, 856 F.2d 652, 655 (4th Cir.1988) (appearing to recognize that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 392 F. Supp. 2d 1302 - Armstrong v. HRB Royalty, Inc.