Continental Casualty Company v. Pullman’s Empirical Analysis
929 F.2d 103 · 1991
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 12 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably 21 Cal. App. 4th 1586 - Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1994), Hartford Casualty Insurance v. New Hampshire Insurance (1994)
3 federal appellate · 12 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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. § 1292
Relies on Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Wrenn v. Board of Directors · Edgar v. McVey Trucking Co. · Mozzochi v. Beck · Mather v. Griffin Hospital
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the plaintiff excess insurer may be characterized as an equitable subrogee of the insured physician, it may not sue the insured’s defense attorney for legal malpractice. To hold otherwise would in our judgment acknowledge a direct duty owed by the insured’s attorney to the excess insurer and would be tantamount to saying that insurance defense attorneys do not owe their duty of loyalty and zealous representation to the insured client alone. Such a holding would contradict the personal nature of the attorney-client relationship, which permits a legal malpractice action to accrue only to the attorney’s client, [citations omitted] Such a holding would also encourage excess insurers to sue defense attorneys for malpractice whenever they are disgruntled by having to pay within limits of policies to which they contracted and for which they received premiums. Were this to occur, we believe that defense attorneys would come to fear such attacks, and the attorney-client relationship would be put in jeopardy.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is clear beyond cavil that in the insurance context the attorney owes his allegiance, not to the insurance company that retained him but to the insured....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In most states, however, the `courts recognize an action based upon equitable subrogation.' Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. , 909 F.2d 228 , 232 (7th Cir. 1990); see also Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. , 699 F. Sup. 732 , 737-38 (S.D.Ind. 1988), aff'd , 909 F.2d 228 (7th Cir. 1990) (the trend is to allow excess insurer to sue primary carrier under doctrine of equitable subrogation for wrongful failure to settle).”
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.