green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 8×
60.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…for several reasons, a suit against a wyo company is the functional equivalent of a suit against fema.
at p. 166
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2015–2021 · 2 courts ·
…the mere denial of insurance benefits to which the plaintiffs believe they entitled does not comprise an unconscionable commercial practice.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
MALIK v. AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC.
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
for several reasons, a suit against a wyo company is the functional equivalent of a suit against fema.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
HAKIM INTERNATIONAL TRADING v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
42 u.s.c, 4072 vests district courts with original exclusive jurisdiction over suits by claimants against companies based on partial or total disallowance of claims for insurance arising out of .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Migliaro v. Fidelity National Indemnity Insurance Co.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
although wyo companies have the responsibility of defending against claims, fema reimburses the wyo companies for their defense costs.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Tucard, LLC v. Fidelity National Property & Casualty Insurance
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the statute provides that an insured may sue fema. if it adjusts a claim and improperly refuses to pay benefits.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION v. FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
the mere denial of insurance benefits to which the plaintiffs believe they entitled does not comprise an unconscionable commercial practice.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Patricia C. Myska, Dax Morales, Katherine K. Wagner and John B. Otdisco v. New Jersey Manufacturers insurance Company, Aaa Mid-Atlantic Insurance Company of New Jersey and Palisades Insurance Company
the mere denial of insurance benefits to which the plaintiffs believe they entitled does not comprise an unconscionable commercial practice.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Irvin B. Beaver v. Magellan Health Services, Inc.
the mere denial of insurance benefits to which . . . plaintiffs believe they entitled does not comprise an unconscionable commercial practice.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Great American Insurance v. Subranni (In Re Tri-State Armored Services, Inc.)
the breach of an enforceable insurance contract does not constitute a violation of new jersey's consumer fraud act.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abdul Malik v. GEICO INSURANCE and AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165 (3d Cir. 1998). 34-1 at 2; ECF No. 34-3 ¶¶ 15–21.) In January 2023, Malik was informed his claim for coverage for the custom-ordered wedding dresses and related clothing had been closed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
VALERIAN v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165 (3d Cir. 1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Henry Siedzikowski v. Administrator Federal Emergency Management Agency
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 167 (3d Cir. 1998) (explaining that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over causes of action “alleging impropriety in the investigation and adjustment” of a claim since they are “intimately related to the disallowance of [an] insurance claim”). 4 Criswell, 2023 WL 3161459 , at *5–6 (E.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BARON & BRENNAN, P.C. v. NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY
(2×)
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3rd Cir.1998) (“The mere denial of insurance benefits to which the plaintiffs believed they were entitled does not comprise an unconscionable commercial practice.”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
SNOWDEN v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY
(4×)
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
GUMBA v. LEAFFILTER NORTH OF NEW JERSEY
(2×)
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir.1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
TWIN CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC v. WICKSTROM
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing Cox, 647 A.2d at 462 & Turf Lawnmower Repair, Inc. v. Bergen Rec.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
PETRI v. DRIVE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
SHARON S. PARK v. THE KUKEN, LLC (L-7637-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
VEYHL v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BUI v. MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 1998).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
SMITH v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Felix v. Service Insurance Company
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 166-67 (3d Cir. 1998).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
FOURNIER TRUCKING, INC. VS. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC. (L-2953-16, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ESTRELLA-ROSALES v. TACO BELL CORPORATION
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir.1998), courts have dismissed CFA complaints for failure to state a claim where plaintiffs have failed to allege that the defendant engaged conduct that could be considered misleading within the meaning of the Act.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
JONES-SINGLETON v. ILLINOIS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 1998); Polizzi Meats, Inc. v. Aetna Life and Cas.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Speedwell Ventures, LLC v. Berley Associates, Ltd.
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 1998)). 49 Id. (citing Lemelledo v. Beneficial Mgmt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Spector v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 4071 (a)(1))). 13 Ekhlassi, 926 F.3d at 137 (quoting Van Holt, 163 F.3d at 166-67 ). 14 Gowland v. Aetna, 143 F.3d 951, 955 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing In re Estate of Lee, 812 F.2d 253 , 256 (5th Cir. 1986)). 15 See, Bennet, Civ.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ali Ekhlassi v. National Lloyds Insurance Co.
(4×)
The third circuit reached the same conclusion in Van Holt , 163 F.3d at 167 (holding § 4072 and § 1331 applied).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bruzos v. United States
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165-67 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting that, “only FEMA bears the risk” of standard flood insurance policies issued by WYO companies and that “a lawsuit against a WYO company is [therefore], in reality, a suit against” the federal government because “the United States treasury funds [ultimately] pay off the insureds’ claims”); Robinson v. Nationwide Mut.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ludwigsen Family Living Trust v. United States
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165-67 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting that, “only FEMA bears the risk” of standard flood insurance policies issued by WYO companies and that “a lawsuit against a WYO company is [therefore], in reality, a suit against” the federal government because “the United States treasury funds [ultimately] pay off the insureds’ claims”); Robinson v. Nationwide Mut.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
De La Garza v. United States
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165-67 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting that, “only FEMA bears the risk” of standard flood insurance policies issued by WYO companies and that “a lawsuit against a WYO company is [therefore], in reality, a suit against” the federal government because “the United States treasury funds [ultimately] pay off the insureds’ claims”); Robinson v. Nationwide Mut.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reyes v. United States
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165-67 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting that, “only FEMA bears the risk” of standard flood insurance policies issued by WYO companies and that “a lawsuit against a WYO company is [therefore], in reality, a suit against” the federal government because “the United States treasury funds [ultimately] pay off the insureds’ claims”); Robinson v. Nationwide Mut.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mousilli v. United States
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165-67 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting that, “only FEMA bears the risk” of standard flood insurance policies issued by WYO companies and that “a lawsuit against a WYO company is [therefore], in reality, a suit against” the federal government because “the United States treasury funds [ultimately] pay off the insureds’ claims”); Robinson v. Nationwide Mut.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hollis, Jr. v. United States
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165-67 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting that, “only FEMA bears the risk” of standard flood insurance policies issued by WYO companies and that “a lawsuit against a WYO company is [therefore], in reality, a suit against” the federal government because “the United States treasury funds [ultimately] pay off the insureds’ claims”); Robinson v. Nationwide Mut.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Micu v. United States
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165-67 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting that, “only FEMA bears the risk” of standard flood insurance policies issued by WYO companies and that “a lawsuit against a WYO company is [therefore], in reality, a suit against” the federal government because “the United States treasury funds [ultimately] pay off the insureds’ claims”); Robinson v. Nationwide Mut.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Y and J Properties, Ltd. v. United States
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165-67 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting that, “only FEMA bears the risk” of standard flood insurance policies issued by WYO companies and that “a lawsuit against a WYO company is [therefore], in reality, a suit against” the federal government because “the United States treasury funds [ultimately] pay off the insureds’ claims”); Robinson v. Nationwide Mut.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nationwide Mutual Ins. v. Caris
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir.1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Foster v. Federal Emergency Management Agency
Oct. 20, 2004), found that "Van Holt merely stated the proposition that federal courts have jurisdiction over suits by policyholders against WYO Companies, not that the limited waiver of sovereign immunity applies whenever a policy holder could sue a WYO Company.” Crucially, "[t]he issue in the Van Holt case was ‘whether the federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over a complaint by an insured predicated on the [NFIA] but actually sounding in tort.' The court of appeals did not address whether NFIA’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity applied when a WYO Company, not FEMA, deni…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mahakali Krupa LLC v. Allstate Insurance Co
(2×)
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165 (3d Cir. 1998).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Spong v. Fidelity National Property & Casualty Insurance
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 167 (3d Cir.1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Residences at Bay Point Condominium Ass'n v. Standard Fire Insurance
(2×)
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165 (3d Cir.1998).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bryan Granelli v. Chicago Title Ins Co
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir.1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anthony D'agostino v. Ricardo Maldonado (068940)
(2×)
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir.1998); accord Cox, supra, 138 N.J. at 18 , 647 A.2d 454 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McGair v. American Bankers Insurance
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 167 (3d Cir.1998) (finding jurisdiction under both § 4072 and § 1331).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Standard Fire Insurance
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165 (3d Cir.1998).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Municipal Ass'n of South Carolina v. Service Ins.
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165 (3d Cir.1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Daloisio v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3rd Cir.1998) (“The mere denial of insurance benefits to which the plaintiffs believed they were entitled does not comprise an unconscionable commercial practice.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lionheart Holding Grp v. Phila Contribution Ship Ins.
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165-66 (3d Cir.1998).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lionheart Holding Grp v. Phila Contribution Ship Ins.
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 165-66 (3d Cir.1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baughman v. United States Liability Insurance
Co., 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir.1998) (“The mere denial of insurance benefits to which the plaintiffs believed they were entitled does not comprise an unconscionable commercial practice [under the NJCFA].”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Re VAN HOLT, Jo Van Holt, Appellants,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Liberty Mutual Group
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Liberty Mutual Group
97-5098_1.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Nov 24, 1998.
Sloviter, Lewis, Rosenn.
Cited by 118 opinions | Published
Citer courts: New Jersey Superior Court App … (2) · Third Circuit (1) · D. New Jersey (1) · D. New Jersey (1)
ORDER
SLOVITER, Judge:On July 21, 1998 the court granted the petition for panel rehearing filed by Appel-lees Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Group, but the Order entered at that time failed to vacate the opinion and judgment. Inasmuch as the vacation of the prior opinion and judgment is required pursuant to I.O.P. 8.3.1, the opinion and judgment in the above matter filed May 11,1998 is hereby vacated.