555 So. 2d 1361 - Sharp v. Daigre’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably Fairfield Insurance Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP (2008), Brumfield v. Guilmino (1994)
1 federal appellate · 24 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. · 513 So. 2d 1126 - Roger v. Estate of Moulton · 536 So. 2d 417 - Pareti v. Sentry Indem. Co. · 407 So. 2d 401 - Bond v. Commercial Union Assur. Co. · 433 So. 2d 1040 - Block v. Reliance 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In addition to arguments based on legislative intent, policy language, and loss of subrogation rights, Aetna and Acceptance maintain that public policy should prevent payment of exemplary damages by UM carriers. First, they suggest that it is unfair to require them to pay punitive damages; they have done nothing wrong and should not be punished. This argument overlooks the nature and function of insurance companies: they pay for the harm that other people cause. In exchange for providing this guarantee of protection to thousands of motorists, they earn a profit. Having accepted insurance premiums from Harvey Sharp, they must fulfill their side of the bargain. Cf Lavender v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 828 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir.1987). The second public policy argument asserts that payment of exemplary damages by insurance companies will encourage drunk driving and sabotage the deterrent effect of LSA-C.C. art. 2315.4. Aetna and Acceptance are not the insurers of the drunk driver in this case; their obligation is to the innocent victim of the accident. Payment of damages by the insurers to their obligee, the victim, will neither encourage nor discourage drunk driving. Many Louisiana courts have already rejected this argument as it applies to liability insurance. Finally, Aetna and Acceptance contend that allowing recovery of exemplary damages from UM carriers will cause insurance companies to raise their premiums, thereby hurting the state's citizens. This argumen”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In addition to general and special damages, exemplary damages may be awarded upon proof that the injuries on which the action is based were caused by a wanton or reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others by a defendant whose intoxication while operating a motor vehicle was a cause in fact of the resulting injuries.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ 6A UM carrier has no independent right to recover from a tortfeasor. After paying a UM claim, a carrier may be conventionally subrogated to the rights of its insured against the tortfeasor. However, the law favors compromise. Without a full release, an underinsured motorist and his liability carrier would never agree to compromise. Thus, the UM carrier’s interest in subro-gation must be subordinated to the recovery of damages by the injured person. If the insured releases the tortfeasor in the course of good faith compromise and settlement, the UM carrier has no recourse.”
2 later decisions 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.