Conte v. Yorkshire Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 1997 · most notably Hanover Insurance v. Fireman's Fund Insurance (1991), Clark v. Union Mutual Life Insurance (1982)
8 federal appellate · 16 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 10 E.H. Smith 327 - Hamilton v. Royal Insurance Co. of Liverpool, England · Hicks v. British America Assurance Co. · Welch v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia · Bakker v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. · Mercer v. Germania Ins.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * [T]he statute makes it incumbent upon the company to deliver to the policyholder a printed form of fire insurance which embodies the standard provisions stipulated in the statute, including the proviso limiting the commencement of an action to a twelvemonth period. * * * The insured has no duty or responsibility in this respect, and speaking realistically, has no reason to know of such a limitation. If the company, as in the case at bar, fails to provide him with a proper policy, one which complies with the statute, it should suffer the consequences of its neglect and not suddenly pull a trapdoor on the innocent insured who parted with the premiums.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The history of statutory insurance clearly indicates that standard policies were made obligatory upon insurance companies to protect ingenuous insureds against the refinements and legalisms devised by the companies. Whenever the Legislature stepped into this area its purpose was to afford the insured more protection and less obfuscation [citation omitted]. We are on firm ground then when wé say that primarily, standard policies are for the safeguarding of policy holders. “Of course, if for any reason at all, apparent or ulterior, an insurer chooses to waive benefits conferred by the statutes providing for uniform policies, this may be done.” Conte, 5 Misc. 2d at 671 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In that case no policy of insurance had been delivered and there was no written agreement of insurance. * * * In such circumstances it was obviously necessary for the court to ascertain the terms of insurance which were not reduced to writing and which were not even orally discussed except as to the “sum for which the property was to be insured, the amount of premiums, and the period of insurance” * * *. The terms of insurance which the court concluded that the parties had impliedly assumed were those provided by statute for standard contracts of insurance. This was a reasonable and indeed a necessary result. ( 5 Misc.2d at 673 , 163 N.Y.S.2d at 31 ).”
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.