Proshee v. Shree, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[s]ummary judgment declaring no coverage under an insurance policy may only be rendered when there is no reasonable interpretation of the policy which would provide coverage under the undisputed facts of the case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 979 So. 2d 609 - Vidrine v. LaFleur · 924 So. 2d 394 - Mouton v. Thomas

2. “The exclusion clearly extends to “the failure of any insured or anyone else for whom any insured is or could be held legally liable to prevent or suppress any assault or battery”.... And, even if one finds that the robbery or failure to prevent the assault or battery is a non-assault or battery related cause, the policy exclusion clearly and unambiguously states that Century shall have no duty to defend any claim where “any actual or alleged injury arises out of any combination of an assault or battery-related cause and a non-assault or battery-related cause”.... In such case, Maise v. Cat’s Meow, Inc., 96-1998 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/16/96) , 683 So.2d 846 , is instructive. In that case, the Fourth Circuit held that irrespective of the fault alleged by plaintiff (whether negligence, intentional act or otherwise), because their injuries arose out of a battery, the policy provided no coverage because of its assault and battery exclusion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 148 So. 3d 244 - Espinosa v. Accor North America, Inc.

3. “Ambiguous terms in an insurance contract are construed liberally in favor of the person claiming coverage. Westerfield v. LaFleur, 493 So.2d 600 (La. 1986). An ambiguity in an insurance policy is said to exist when the pertinent provision can be reasonably construed in two different ways. McCarthy v. Berman, 95-1456 (La.02/28/96), 668 So.2d 721 .... The interpretation of an insurance policy is usually a legal question that can be properly resolved by a motion for summary judgment. Miller v. Superior Shipyard and Fabrication, Inc., 01-2907, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 08/20/03), 859 So.2d 159, 162 , writ denied, 03-2643 (La.12/12/03), 860 So.2d 1159 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 7 So. 3d 51 - Capitol Anesthesia Group, P.A. v. Watson