828 F. Supp. 877 - Johnson v. Studyvin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Johnsons argue that, if given the opportunity, Kansas would adopt a rule of law that if an insurer breaches its duty to defend its insured from some claim, it is estopped from denying coverage for that claim. The court disagrees. The Johnsons have not cited any authority that Kansas courts have adopted or are inclined to adopt such a rule. Such a rule is a minority position among the states. See R. Jerry, Understanding Insurance Law, § 111[6] at 581 (1987). “Kansas courts have addressed situations in which this rule could have been applied if the courts were so inclined but have not done so. In Spruill Motors Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. [,] 212 Kan. 681 , 512 P.2d 403 (1973), the insurer breached its duty to defend the insured but the Kansas Supreme Court dealt with the merits of the insurer’s policy defenses anyway. A similar situation was present in Snodgrass v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins., 15 Kan. App. 2d 153 , 804 P.2d 1012 (1991), in which a jury determined that State Farm had breached its duty to defend but on appeal, the appellate court considered State Farm’s policy defenses concerning coverage. In either of these cases, had they chosen to do so, the court could have estopped the insurer from asserting its policy defenses after finding that it breached it duty to defend. “Many courts have declined to follow such a rule because it has the potential of creating coverage where none has been contracted for. . . . “Because Kansas courts have been presented w”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Woolman · 28 Kan. App. 2d 839 - Aselco, Inc. v. Hartford Insurance Group

2. “There have been a number of legal theories which attempt to set forth, for purposes of insurance contract interpretation, when a bodily injury occurs in connection with a person’s exposure to a hazardous substance such as asbestos. These include the theories that individuals are injured (1) when they are first exposed to the hazardous substance ... (2) when they manifest symptoms of their injury or disease resulting from exposure to the hazardous substance, ... (3) when actual injury occurs ... (4) or any time when one of these three events occurs, (internal citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Wallace & Gale Co. (In Re Wallace & Gale Co.)

3. “The Company will pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of ... property damage to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the insured premises and all operations necessary or incidental to the business of the named insured conducted at or from the insured premises....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Browder v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.