Eckenrode v. Life of America Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
470 F.2d 1 · 1972
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably 85 Wis. 2d 675 - Anderson v. Continental Insurance (1978), 66 Ill. 2d 85 - Public Finance Corp. v. Davis (1976)
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Crisci v. Security Insurance · 10 Cal. App. 3d 376 - Fletcher v. Western National Life Insurance · 22 Ill. 2d 73 - Knierim v. Izzo · 38 Cal. 2d 330 - State Rubbish Collectors Ass'n v. Siliznoff
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is true that settlement tactics may be privHeged under circumstances where an insurer has done no more than insist upon his legal rights in a permissible way. But we do not think that a refusal to make payments based on a bad faith insistence on a non-existent defense is privHeged conduct against the complaint here.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Defendant’s life insurance policy covering plaintiff’s husband issued September 22,1967. Under the policy Insurer agreed to pay plaintiff $5,000 immediately upon due proof of death from ‘accidental causes.’ On December 17, 1967, insured was an accidental victim of a homicide. Plaintiff met all conditions of the policy and repeatedly demanded payment, but Insurer refused to pay. Decedent left plaintiff with several children, but no property of value. She had no money, none even for the funeral expenses. Denied payment by Insurer, she was required to borrow money to support her family, while her financial condition worsened. The family was required to live with, and accept charity from, relatives. - FURTHER: Insurer knew or should have known of the death of decedent from accidental causes and of plaintiff’s dire need of the policy proceeds. Yet Insurer repeatedly and deliberately refused her demands for payment, and as a proximate result she was caused to suffer ‘severe distress and disturbance of [her] mental tranquility.’ Instead of paying her the proceeds of the policy, and being fully aware of the accidental cause of decedent’s death and of plaintiff’s financial distress, Insurer breached the policy promise to pay immediately upon proof of death. Insurer, knowing full well that plaintiff needed the proceeds of the policy to provide necessaries for her children, applied ‘economic coercion’ in refusing to make payment on the policy, and in ‘inviting’ plaintiff to ‘compromise”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“extreme `bullying tactics' and other `high pressure' methods of insurance adjusters seeking to force compromises or settlements may constitute outrageous conduct.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.