Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 964 F.2d 759 - National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania v. Structural Systems Technology Inc Structural Systems Technology Inc

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania v. Structural Systems Technology Inc Structural Systems Technology Inc’s Empirical Analysis

964 F.2d 759 · 1992

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2016

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

110199220002010decided

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 · Howard v. Russell Stover Candies, Inc. · John Deere Insurance v. Shamrock Industries, Inc. · McCuen Am v. American Casualty Company of Reading Pennsylvania · Reed (Marty) v. Teledyne Industries, 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “First, an insurer's duty to defend is determined by comparing the policy provisions with the allegations charging the insured with liability. Howard v. Russell Stover Candies, Inc., 649 F.2d 620, 624 (8th Cir.1981). An insurer's duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. Id. at 625 . There is a duty to defend if the complaint alleges facts which state a claim potentially within policy coverage. Id. at 624 . Second, in Missouri the insured has the burden of proving that the loss and damages claimed are covered by the insuring provisions, and the insurer has the burden of proving the applicability of any exclusion upon which it relies. Taylor-Morley-Simon, Inc. v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 645 F.Supp. 596, 599 (E.D.Mo.1986) (citing Grossman Iron & Steel Co. v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 558 S.W.2d 255, 259-60 (Mo.Ct.App.1977), aff'd, 822 F.2d 1093 (8th Cir.1987)).”
    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.