735 So. 2d 881 - Sutherland v. Babin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

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

1. “Implicit in the Legislature’s direction to insurers to design a form, was the responsibility to design a form that would fairly effectuate the intent of the law. The legislature did not mandate that the form be designed in any particular way, nor did it indicate that any particular language was sacrosanct. The legislature had to have anticipated that various insurers might go about the design of the necessary form in different ways. Moreover, as in any case where the same type of document is drafted separately by multiple authors, it is to be expected that some forms will be better than others. Had the legislature believed that only one format was acceptable or that only certain words or phrases could be used, it would have included the required format in the statute. [[Image here]] In Tugwell, we held that a rejection form used by an insurance company must inform the applicant of the available options regarding UM coverage so that the applicant can make a meaningful selection from among the options provided by the statute [[Image here]] lfiIn Tugwell, we noted that the task of informing the applicant of available op tions can be accomplished in several ways. It is not the job of the courts to draft insurance forms or to dictate the exact format or wording which must be used for a valid rejection of the mandated UM coverage. The legislature specifically left that task to the insurers.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 778 So. 2d 1155 - Schaefer v. Allstate Insurance

2. “Nowhere in [the policy] ... is there a statement to inform the insured that failure to reject coverage equal to the bodily limits will result in UM coverage equal to the bodily injury liability limits. We deem this form facially insufficient to comply with the requirements of the statute and jurisprudence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hotard v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.