673 So. 2d 340 - Frost v. David’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2010
9 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 634 So. 2d 1180 - Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd. · 550 So. 2d 577 - Penalber v. Blount · Muse v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. · 609 So. 2d 195 - Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co. · 627 So. 2d 148 - Yount v. Maisano
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed according to general rules of contract interpretation. The extent of coverage provided by a policy is determined by the parties' intent, as reflected by the words of the policy. Where the policy language is clear, unambiguous, and expressive of the parties' intent, the agreement must be enforced as written. The purpose of liability insurance is to provide the insured with protection from damage claims. Therefore, policies should be construed to effect rather than to deny coverage. Provisions which seek to narrow the obligation of the insurer are to be strictly construed against the insurer. If the language of the exclusion is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations, the interpretation favoring coverage must be applied. However, subject to the above rules of interpretation, insurance companies have the right to limit coverage in any manner as long as the limitations do not conflict with statutory provisions or public policy. The strict construction rule does not authorize the court to create a new contract or to alter the terms of a contract which are expressed with sufficient clearness to convey the plain meaning of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The terms of the exclusion are specific and clearly provide [the insurer] is not liable for damages resulting from the acts in which plaintiff alleges [defendant] was engaged, all of which pertain to the furnishing of alcohol to minors and/or causing or contributing to the intoxication of a person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Since it is against the public policy of the state to serve or sell alcohol to minors, it is not against public policy for an insurance company to exclude coverage for damages arising from such conduct.”
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.