714 So. 2d 783 - Taylor v. Sider’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

cited by 8 later decisions

states following

June 2005

most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 588 So. 2d 792 - Haltom v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · 620 So. 2d 441 - Sandoz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · 518 So. 2d 494 - Wyatt v. Robin · Bamburg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. · 665 So. 2d 1283 - Taylor v. Sider

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

“(c)(i) If the insured has any limits of uninsured motorist coverage in a policy of automobile liability insurance, in accordance with the terms of Subsection D(l), then such limits of liability shall not be increased because of multiple motor vehicles covered under said policy of insurance and such limits of uninsured motorist coverage shall not be increased when the insured has insurance available to him under more than one uninsured motorist coverage provision or policy; provided, however, that with respect to other insurance available, the policy of insurance or endorsement shall provide the following: (ii) With respect to bodily injury to an injured party while occupying an automobile not owned by said injured party, resident spouse, or resident relative, the following priorities of recovery under uninsured motorist coverage shall apply: (aa) The uninsured motorist coverage on the vehicle in which the injured party was an occupant is primary; (bb) Should that primary uninsured motorist coverage be exhausted due to the extent of damages, then the injured occupant may recover as excess from other uninsured motorist coverage available to him. In no instance shall more than one coverage from more than one uninsured motorist policy be available as excess over and above the primary coverage available to the injured occupant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 833 So. 2d 1080 - Nall v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · 809 So. 2d 1169 - Adams v. Allstate Ins. Co.
“[W]hile [the plaintiff] may have UM coverage available under two State Farm policies, one on [her daughter's] car and one on [her husband's] car, she may not `stack' them so as to receive UM coverage under both policies.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 833 So. 2d 1080 - Nall v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · Richard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
“newly acquired or replacement motor vehicle.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
e.g. 833 So. 2d 1080 - Nall v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · 869 So. 2d 96 - Mayo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

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.