Cox v. Peerless Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 2020
3 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. § 1961
Relies on Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. · Brown v. Employer's Reinsurance Corp. · Plasticrete Corp. v. American Policyholders Insurance · 587 F. Supp. 1301 - Jurrius v. MacCabees Mutual Life Insurance · Murphy v. Marmon Group, Inc.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the 1984 insurance policy is silent as to prejudgment interest, it is properly included within the [policy’s] definition of “defense costs”. Prejudgment interest is a statutory right, primed by a plaintiffs filing of an Offer of Judgment with the court, and activated after the plaintiff receives a verdict, and a judgment award of an amount equal to or greater than his original settlement offer. Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-192a. The purpose of this statute is to encourage settlement. In addition to the costs associated with conducting a trial, the statute’s prejudgment interest award “provides an additional incentive to settle a lawsuit and avoid a trial in certain cases by imposing an increased penalty upon a non- settling litigant.” Murphy v. Marmon Group, Inc., 562 F.Supp. 856, 859 (D.Conn. 1983). An award of prejudgment interest arises from a defense attorney’s strategic decision to reject an offer of settlement, and proceed to trial. Therefore, an award of prejudgment interest does not arise out of the action’s underlying controversy, and is not taxed to the defendant’s policy’s $50,-000 limit of liability as “damages”, but rather is an expense associated with the “defense costs” and strategy of the case. 774 F.Supp. at 86 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[a]n award of prejudgment interest arises from a defense attorney's strategic decision to reject an offer of settlement, and proceed to trial. Therefore, an award of prejudgment interest does not arise out of the action's underlying controversy, and is not taxed to the defendant's policy's . . . limit of liability as `damages', but rather is an expense associated with the `defense costs' and strategy of the case." Cox v. Peerless Ins. Co. , supra, 774 F. Supp. 86 . (1991).”
1 later decision 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.