732 F. Supp. 996 - Nelson v. Becton’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 4013 · 42 U.S.C. § 4041 · 42 U.S.C. § 4051 · 42 U.S.C. § 4053 · 42 U.S.C. § 4071 · 42 U.S.C. § 4072
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Finley v. United States · Burnley v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n · Aschenbrenner v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The crux of the present dispute is whether the plaintiffs’ homes’ lower levels were basements as defined in the SFIP and therefore subject to the basement exclusion. [1] This Court finds that coverage for the plaintiffs’ losses is specifically excluded under the clear language of the policy. Federal common law controls the interpretation of insurance policies issued pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program. Sodowski v. National Flood Ins. Program, 834 F.2d 653, 655 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1043 , 108 S.Ct. 2035 , 100 L.Ed.2d 619 (1988). However, standard insurance law principles apply. Id. Because insurance contracts are written by the insurer and offered to the insured in a fixed form, if the language is susceptible to two constructions, the one more favorable to the insured will be adopted. Aschenbrenner v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 292 U.S. 80, 84-85 , 54 S.Ct. 590, 592-593 , 78 L.Ed. 1137 reh’g denied, 292 U.S. 615 , 54 S.Ct. 861 , 78 L.Ed. 1474 (1934). If the policy language is clear and unambiguous, its natural meaning controls. Sodowski, 834 F.2d at 656 (quoting Hanover Bldg. Materials, Inc. v. Guiffrida, 748 F.2d 1011, 1013 (5th Cir.1984)). [2] The SFIP unambiguously excludes from coverage certain losses to a home’s lowest level when its floor is subgrade on all sides. Plaintiffs, understandably, would have it another way, but in reality their homes are not true walkouts. 6 The plaintiffs acknowledge and their own photographs indicate t”
2 later decisions 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.