520 So. 2d 721 - Bosch v. Cummings’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably 536 So. 2d 417 - Pareti v. Sentry Indem. Co. (1988), 585 So. 2d 534 - Henson v. Safeco Ins. Companies (1991)
33 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 418 So. 2d 575 - Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co. · 407 So. 2d 401 - Bond v. Commercial Union Assur. Co. · 368 So. 2d 1003 - Niemann v. Travelers Ins. Co. · 406 So. 2d 178 - Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. v. Sonnier · Moreau v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An uninsured motorist insurance carrier does not acquire any right against a tortfeasor merely because the latter has committed an offense or quasi-offense against the carrier’s insured. The uninsured motorist insurance statute does not grant or permit the UM carrier to have an independent right of action against the tortfeasor. When the carrier makes payment under its policy to its insured the carrier becomes subrogated, in the measure of what it has paid, to the insured’s right of action against the tort-feasor. Accordingly, if the insured has already discharged the tortfeasor from his obligation by entering a compromise with him, the carrier cannot acquire the insured's right against the tortfeasor because it no longer exists.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“By allowing the insurer who either totally or partially pays the victim for the damages he has suffered a right of subrogation to his action against the uninsured or underinsured tortfeasor, the codal scheme promotes full compensation of accident victims by making the tortfeasors ultimately responsible for their delicts and thereby encouraging motorists to maintain adequate liability coverage. By giving the insured who has been only partially compensated for his loss a lawful cause of preference over the insurer for payment out of his debtor's property, the code further implements the object of the uninsured motorist statute, which is to promote full recovery for damages by innocent automobile accident victims by making both primary protection and excess coverage available.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dunn v. Terry“"This court has declined to interpret the inexplicit language of the statute [LSR.S. 22:1406(D)(4)] so as to grant the (UM) insurer an independent right of action against an underinsured motorist or his liability insurer, Hebert v. Green, 311 So.2d 223, 228 (La.1975), or permit the uninsured motorist carrier to enforce a clause excluding uninsured motorist coverage in the event of its insured's failure to obtain its consent before entering a reasonable settlement with an underinsured tortfeasor and his insurer, Niemann v. Travelers Insurance Co., supra, at 1008 (La.1979) ..."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Trautman v. Poor
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.