Jones v. Medox, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
4 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 2019
4 district · 10 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 Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. Oregon Automobile Insurance · 52 Cal. 2d 507 - American Automobile Insurance Co. v. Republic Indemnity Co. · Oregon Auto. Ins. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · District of Columbia v. George Washington University · Citizens Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a Michigan Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a Massachusetts Corporation
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he policy containing the pro rata clause is valid and collectible primary insurance that triggers application of the excess clause in the second policy. The excess clause in the second policy therefore is given full effect and that carrier is only liable for the loss after the primary insurer has paid up to its policy limits. The policy containing the excess clause, however, is not considered to be other valid and collectible primary insurance for the purpose of triggering the operation of the pro rata clause, because when a stated contingency occurs, that is, when there is other valid and collectible primary insurance available to the insured, the policy containing the excess clause becomes secondary coverage only. [ Jones v. Medox, Inc., 430 A. 2d 488, 491 (D.C.1981) (footnote omitted).]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[n]either insurance company is getting `stuck' for anything more that it contracted to provide for its insured.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“There are three basic types of 'other insurance' provisions .... The pro rata clause provides that the insurer will pay its pro rata share of the loss , usually in the proportion that the limit of its policy bears to the aggregate limits of all valid and collectible insurance. The excess clause generally provides that the insurer's liability is limited to the amount by which the loss exceeds the coverage provided by all other valid and collectible insurance, up to the limits of the excess policy.”
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.