Allstate Insurance v. Loo’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1998), 64 Cal. App. 4th 698 - Exxess Electronixx v. Heger Realty Corp. (1998)
34 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 Continental Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Construction Co. · 8 Cal. 3d 712 - Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Fales · 3 Cal. App. 4th 1338 - Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc. · 38 Cal. App. 3d 59 - T.E.D. Bearing Co. v. Walter E. Heller & Co. · 21 Cal. App. 4th 1586 - Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Maryland Casualty Co.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n any legal action brought by either party to enforce the terms hereof or relating to the demised premises”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“An insurer/subrogee paying for a loss has the right to pursue its insured’s rights and remedies against the third party causing the loss. (Continental Cas. Co. v. Phoenix Constr. Co. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 423, 429 , 296 P.2d 801 ; Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1586, 1595-1596 , 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 762 .) In the action for subrogation the insurer as subrogee stands in the shoes of the insured/subrogor. (Suburban Motors, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1354, 1357 , 268 Cal.Rptr. 16 .) When standing in the insured’s shoes as the analogy indicates, the insurer has no greater rights than the insured would have, and for that reason is subject to the same defenses assertable against the insured/subrogor. (E.g., Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fales (1973) 8 Cal.3d 712, 717 , 106 Cal.Rptr. 21 , 505 P.2d 213 ; Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 1596 , 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 762 ; Bright v. American Termite Control Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1464, 1469 , 269 Cal.Rptr. 793 .) An excellent example of this principle in action in the context of contractual attorney fees is Rushing v. Intern. Aviation Underwriters (Tex.Civ.App.1980) 604 S.W.2d 239 . There defendant leased an aircraft from Hi-Performance Aviation which he damaged upon landing. The insurer of the aircraft, International Aviation Underwriters, paid for the cost of repairs under its policy with Hi-Performance Aviation, then brought an action ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“did assert a contractual cause of action: breach of the implied warranty of habitability.”
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.