Smalls v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Travelers Indemnity Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union (2001), Cameron v. USAA Property & Casualty Insurance (1999)
8 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 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 California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · ITT Continental Baking Co. v. William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. · Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Ogilvie · Keene Corporation v. Insurance Company of North America Keene Corporation · Insurance Co. of North America v. Keene Corp.
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.
“Since insurance contracts are written exclusively by insurers, courts generally interpret any ambiguous provisions in a manner consistent with the reasonable expectations of the purchaser of the policy. However, when such contracts are clear and unambiguous, they will be enforced by the courts as written, so long as they do not violate a statute or public policy.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“We agree with the trial court that, although the household exclusion clause conflicts with the No-Fault Act, it is invalid only to the extent of that conflict. Generally, parties are free to enter into whatever contractual agreements they wish. That freedom is curtailed by the courts only when such contracts, or contractual provisions, run contrary to public policy. Wisconsin Avenue Associates v. 2720 Wisconsin Avenue Cooperative Ass’n, 441 A.2d 956, 964 (D.C.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 827 , 103 S.Ct. 62 , 74 L.Ed.2d 64 (1982). As State Farm notes in its brief, household exclusion clauses are not invalid in and of themselves. The principal purpose of such clauses is usually to protect insurers against collusive lawsuits. Because this is a legitimate goal, household exclusion clauses have been upheld by the courts of many states when they have not been in conflict with statutory requirements. In the present case, we hold that as long as the minimum insurance requirements of section 35-2106(c) are met, the household exclusion clause in Mr. Smalls’ policy, limiting further third-party liability above and beyond the statutory minimum, is not inconsistent with the Act’s remedial purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Third-party personal liability coverage shall provide that any liability of an insured to pay for injury arising from an accident within or outside the District of Columbia, in accordance with applicable law, shall be paid by the insurer up to the amount established in the policy.”
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.