Dow Chemical Company v. Royal Indemnity Company, R. B. Butler, Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis
635 F.2d 379 · 1981
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 118 Ill. App. 3d 612 - Mattis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1983), Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1990)
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 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 Glover v. National Insurance Underwriters · Ramsay v. Maryland American General Insurance Co. · Morrison Grain Company Inc v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company · Hardware Dealers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Berglund · The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Harold C. Yates and Eleanor Catherine Yates
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A policy of insurance insuring against 'all risks' creates a special type of coverage that extends to risks not usually covered under other insurance; recovery under an all-risk policy will be allowed for all fortuitous losses not resulting from misconduct or fraud, unless the policy contains a specific provision expressly excluding the loss from coverage.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“insurance policies will be interpreted liberally in favor of the insured and ambiguities strictly against the insurer, especially when dealing with exceptions and words of limitation.” Dow Chem. Co., 635 F.2d at 386 (citing Ramsay v. Maryland American General Insurance Company, 533 S.W.2d 344 (Tex.1976)). Further,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the collapse of the dome was due to the failure of the subcontractor Dow’s employees to perform the welding in accordance with these specifications ... which would constitute a failure of workmanship, not of design.”
1 later decision 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.