56 Wis. 2d 632 - Limpert v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 state decisions

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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The purpose of defining and limiting the meaning of these terms with respect to these coverage provisions in the automobile liability policies (which terms exclude liability arising out of the use of another automobile owned by or regularly used by a member of an insured’s household) is to avoid coverage for several vehicles owned by members of the same family who, by their close relationship, might be expected to use each other’s cars without hindrance and with or without permission. Without this limitation a person could purchase just one policy on only one automobile and thereby secure coverage for all the other vehicles he may own or vehicles the members of his family own while residents of the same household. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. Maca (1965), 26 Wis. 2d 399, 405 , 132 N.W.2d 517 ; Giese v. Karstedt (1966), 30 Wis. 2d 630, 637 , 141 N.W.2d 886 ; and McDonald v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1970), 47 Wis. 2d 235 , 177 N.W.2d 101 . There is no doubt that a car owner can insure all of the automobiles he owns, but he cannot do so under a policy describing only one such automobile and omitting all others owned by him or by household relatives. McDonald v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 139 Wis. 2d 335 - Schwochert v. American Family Mutual Ins. · Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. VanDoren

2. “[W]hen the terms of a policy are plain on their face, such policy should not be rewritten by construction to bind an insurer to a risk which it did not contemplate, or a risk it was unwilling to cover, and for which it was not paid.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beerbohm v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · Mullen v. Walczak

3. ““DEFINITION OF INSURED . . . “(a) with respect to the described automobile, “ (1) the named insured, and “(2) any other person using such automobile, provided the actual use is with the permission of the named insured or an adult member of his household other than a chauffeur or domestic servant; and “(b) with respect to a non-owned automobile, “(1) the named insured or a relative, and “(2) any other person or organization not owning or hiring such automobile if legally responsible for its use by the named insured or a relative, but only in the event such named insured or relative is legally liable for the occurrence; provided the actual use of the non-owned automobile by the persons in (1) and (2) above is with the permission of the owner. . . .” “ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS “Described automobile means the automobile described in the Declarations and includes a trailer owned by the named insured if designed for use with a private passenger automobile, a newly acquired automobile and/or a substitute automobile. . . . “Non-Owned Automobile means an automobile not owned by or regularly or frequently used by the named insured or any resident of the same household, other than a substitute automobile. “Substitute Automobile means an automobile not owned by the named insured or any resident of the same household, while temporarily used with the permission of the owner, as a substitute for the described automobile when withdrawn from normal use because of its breakdown, repair, servicing”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 85 Wis. 2d 383 - Damp v. Zabel