Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 840 F.2d 181 - Keystone Shipping Company v. Home Insurance Company

Keystone Shipping Company v. Home Insurance Company’s Empirical Analysis

840 F.2d 181 · 1988

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
August 2007
most recently cited

2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2007

2 district · 2 state decisions

60198819902000decided

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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1333

Relies on Wilburn Boat Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company · Harris v. McRae · Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire Insurance · Akers v. United States · Israel v. Futuronics Corp.

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

  1. “... the parties assume the existence of a duty on the part of Home, as co-insurer, to pay a share of this settlement pro-rata to the share of indemnity it underwrote in the third excess level contract. They do not refer us to the source of that duty .... we believe some duty exists.... Without precisely pigeonholing the nature of its origin, we will therefore accept their invitation and assume a duty's existence without determining whether it arises out of obligation implied in contract, duties of contribution or equitable subrogation imposed by the law of restitution, or by a fictional duty constructed from the loan receipts [received from the insured by the co-insurers suing Home].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “would not have a recalcitrant insurer whose evaluation falls within the range of all reasonable settlements wholly free to escape payment of its portion of a reasonable settlement by its co-insurer,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]e find it hard to conclude that Pennsylvania would impose on a co-insurer a greater obligation to his fellows than it does upon an insurer to its insured.”
    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.