Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance v. Kitty Hawk Airways, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
964 F.2d 478 · 1992
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Ulico Casualty Co. v. Allied Pilots Ass'n (2008), Western Heritage Insurance Company v. Magic Years Learning Centers and Child Care Inc R J (1995)
10 federal appellate · 9 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 Salve Regina College v. Russell · Kelsey-Hayes Co. v. Dunlop Co. · Yancey v. Floyd West & Co. · Employers Casualty Company v. Tilley · Texas Farmers Insurance Co. v. McGuire
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that the insurer had sufficient knowledge of the facts or circumstances indicating non-coverage but (2) assumed or continued to defend its insured without obtaining an effective reservation of rights or non-waiver agreement and, as a result, (3) the insured suffered some type of harm.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if an insurer assumes the insured’s defense without obtaining a reservation of rights or a non-waiver agreement and with knowledge of the facts indicating non-coverage, all policy defenses, including those of non-coverage, are waived, or the insurer may be estopped from raising them.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Doctrines of waiver and estoppel, although used somewhat interchangeably ... are distinct and separate doctrines: waiver requires the voluntary surrender of a known right (for example, if the insurer knows that it can raise a non-coverage defense but chooses not to), while estoppel requires a showing that the insured was prejudiced by the insurer's conduct. Kitty Hawk Airways, 964 F.2d at 480 n. 5 (citations omitted). In the instant case, because the Court holds that Plaintiffs have neither waived any Policy defenses nor are estopped from claiming them, the Court will not rule as to which doctrine applies.”
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.