925 F. Supp. 758 - West American Insurance v. Band & Desenberg’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 2013
6 federal appellate · 6 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
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Western World Insurance v. Stack Oil, Inc. · Waste Management of Carolinas, Inc. v. Peerless Insurance · 104 N.C. App. 312 - West American Insurance Co. v. Tufco Flooring East, 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Band also argues that the pollution exclusion should apply only to "environmental" pollution. Band again relies on cases interpreting older versions of the pollution exclusion for this argument. In those cases, the courts first looked to the historical purpose of the pollution exclusion and held that the drafters intended the exclusion to limit coverage for clean-up costs imposed by EPA legislation. The courts then looked at the language requiring the discharge to be "onto land, into the atmosphere, or into water" and interpreted that to mean that the exclusion was applicable only when the pollutants were discharged into the outside environment. However, as with Band's first argument, this pollution exclusion does not have the language interpreted by the other courts. Thus, the reasoning of those cases is inapplicable to the case at hand. Additionally, this Court cannot examine the history of the exclusion because the language is clear and unambiguous and to resort to history would, therefore, be contrary to Florida law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he language of the exclusion is clear and unambiguous.... The language requires only that the pollution occur at a premises owned or occupied by an insured.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants”
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.