42 Wash. App. 633 - Rodriguez v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 8 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 2008 · most notably Doe v. Shaffer (2000), Gearing v. Nationwide Insurance (1996)
3 federal appellate · 8 district · 25 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 CNA Insurance v. McGinnis · 99 Wash. 2d 65 - Phil Schroeder, Inc. v. Royal Globe Insurance · 102 Wash. 2d 182 - State v. Hicks · MacKinnon v. Hanover Insurance · Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Hill
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he average person purchasing homeowner's insurance would cringe at the very suggestion that [the person] was paying for such coverage. And certainly [the person] would not want to share that type of risk with other homeowner's policyholders.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The argument is made that coverage is to be determined from the subjective intent of the individual insured. As seen, the interpretation of an insurance policy is to be made in accordance with the way it would be understood by the ordinary person buying insurance. See also Ames v. Baker, 68 Wash.2d 713 , 415 P.2d 74 (1966). Moreover, every purchaser of insurance can expect harm from such conduct. “Expected” means “more likely than not to occur.” Medina v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 37 Wash.App. 360, 365 , 680 P.2d 69 , review denied, 102 Wash.2d 1004 (1984). A child will more likely than not suffer mental and psychological injuries as a result of having sexual contact with his parent or step-parent. Thus, such injuries would be “expected” by an average, reasonable person. See CNA Ins. Co. v. McGinnis, 282 Ark. 90 , 666 S.W.2d 689, 691 (1984); Truck Ins. Exchange v. Pickering, 642 S.W.2d 113, 116 (Mo.App. 1982); but see Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Ins. Co., Inc. v. Dyer, 454 So.2d 921, 925 (Ala.1984); Shook v. Tinny, 122 Ill.App.3d 741 , 78 Ill.Dec. 58 , 461 N.E.2d 642, 645 (1984); Patrons-Oxford Mutual Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 426 A.2d 888, 891-92 (Me.1981). As a matter of law, Rodriguez’s injuries were “expected” by Williams and Kelly’s and Jessica’s injuries were “expected” by Hoglund.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“which is expected or intended by the insured, but this exclusion does not apply to any act committed by or at the direction of the insured not intended to cause serious bodily injury . . .”
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.