American Contract Bridge League v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
752 F.2d 71 · 1985
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Hammersmith v. TIG Insurance (2007), Berg Chilling Systems, Inc. v. Hull Corp. (2006)
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc. · Gedeon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Cadwallader v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. · Lee v. Ætna Casualty & Surety 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, hereinafter called "bodily injury” either (1) sustained by any person arising out of acts or omissions at the designated job site which are related to or are in connection with the work described in Item 3 of the declarations [Item 3 listed the North Norwich, New York site where Lubbe was working] or (2) sustained at the designated job site by the contractor or any employee of the contractor or by any designated employee of the insured whether or not arising out of such acts or omissions. A “designated employee of the insured” is defined as: (1) any supervisory employee of the insured at the job site; (2) any employee of the insured while operating, attached to or engaged on work trains or other railroad equipment at the job site which are assigned exclusively to the contractor; (3) any employee of the insured not within (1) or (2) who is specifically loaned or assigned to the work of the contractor for prevention of accidents or protection of property, the cost of whose services is borne specifically by the contractor or by governmental authority-”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In (Griffith v. United Air Lines, 416 Pa. 1 , 203 A.2d 796 (1964), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted a flexible choice-of-law rule which permits an “analysis of the policies and interests underlying the particular issue before the court” and a determination of which jurisdiction is most intimately concerned with the outcome of the litigation. Id. at 21, 22, 203 A.2d 796 . Both Nationwide and Aetna are licensed to do business in Pennsylvania. The Livezey suit has been brought in Pennsylvania and involves the Pennsylvania Contract Bridge Association, as well as several Pennsylvania residents. The harm alleged in the Livezey suit occurred in Pennsylvania. Clearly, under Pennsylvania’s “policy, interests and contacts test,” it is Pennsylvania law which should be applied to resolve the present controversy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“confine the possibility of recovery to claims outside the coverage of the policy”
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.