Brander v. Nabors’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[b]asically, the `claims made' policy would provide unlimited retroactive coverage and no prospective coverage at all, while the `occurrence' policy would provide unlimited prospective coverage and no retroactive coverage at all.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 507 F. Supp. 59 - Appalachian Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · 278 N.J. Super. 513 - Med. Inter Ins. v. Health Care

2. “A basic rule of law, recognized in Mississippi and universally, is that insurance policies like other written contracts, are construed most strongly against the drafter, ... and any ambiguity in an insurance policy is construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured,____ “If the terms of an insurance policy are reasonably susceptible to two interpretations, the one sustaining indemnity must prevail.” ... It is equally well settled that “the special rules favoring the insured are only applicable when there is an ambiguity ... [and that] courts ought not to strain to find such ambiguities, if, in so doing, they defeat probable intentions of the parties ... even when the result is an apparently harsh consequence to the insured,” .... Courts will neither create an ambiguity where none exists nor make a new contract for the parties____ If the policy language is clear, unequivocal, and, hence, unambiguous, its terms will be enforced, ... since “[t]he power to make such contracts as the parties desire to make, when not prohibited by law or public policy, is a fundamental principle of the ... insurance business, and is essential to its successful conduct.” ...”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · 727 F. Supp. 300 - Ware v. Carrom Health Care Products, Inc.

3. ““1. WHEREAS the Assured named in the Schedule herein has made a written proposal, a signed copy of which is attached hereto, which bears the date stated in the Schedule and contains particulars and statements which shall be the basis of this contract and are to be considered as incorporated herein, and whereas the Assured has paid the premium stated in the said Schedule. 2. NOW WE THE UNDERWRITERS hereby agree, subject to the terms, limitations, exclusions and conditions of this Insurance, to pay on behalf of the Assured all sums which the Assured shall by law be held liable to pay for damages arising out of bodily injury or mental injury to or death of any patient caused by or alleged to have been caused by error, omission or negligence in professional services rendered or which should have been rendered (hereinafter referred to as Malpractice). PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT (a) such Malpractice results in a claim being made against the Assured during the period of Insurance as stated in the Schedule and of which immediate notice has been given in accordance with Sub-Paragraph 2 of the Special Condition hereof except that any claim subsequently arising out of the conduct or circumstances referred to in such notice shall for the purposes of this Insurance be deemed to have been made during the currency of this Insurance. . (c) there shall be no liability hereunder for any claim made against the Assured for Malpractice committed or alleged to have been committed prior to the Retroactiv”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brander v. Nabors