Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Crown Auto Dealerships Inc Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 1 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. “Whether, as a matter of law, the pollution exclusion clause contained in the comprehensive general liability insurance policy precludes coverage to its insured for liability for the environmental contamination that occurred in this case.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 636 So. 2d 700 - Dimmitt Chevrolet v. Southeastern Fidelity · Sam Galloway Ford, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance

2. “We conclude that the record properly includes the extrinsic evidence submitted by Dimmitt regarding the drafting history of the pollution exclusion clause and the intent of the insurance companies. Appellee argues that such extrinsic evidence is not properly a part of the record on appeal because much of it was proffered with the post-trial motion to alter or amend and was thus untimely. Under the circumstances of this case, it was appropriate for Dimmitt to proffer the evidence in connection with the motion to alter or amend. The district court ruled that the evidence was discoverable in a February 8, 1990 order. The parties' pretrial stipulation contemplated that the issue of admissibility of the evidence would be decided at a motion in limine. However, the district court granted summary judgment prior to the date set for trial. Dimmitt reasonably planned to argue for admissibility of the evidence at a motion in limine, rather than in a supplemental brief in connection with the pending summary judgment motions, because the district court's February 8, 1990 order denied motions by certain other auto dealerships to file supplemental briefs in support of their cross-motions for summary judgment. Furthermore, Southeastern had an opportunity to respond to the extrinsic evidence, and in fact did respond, in their Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Finally, at least some of the evidence was discussed in opinions cited by the district court i”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 636 So. 2d 700 - Dimmitt Chevrolet v. Southeastern Fidelity

3. “) for the costs of investigating and cleaning up the pollution. This liability is imposed, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 636 So. 2d 700 - Dimmitt Chevrolet v. Southeastern Fidelity