What do you call a coverage case that quotes lyrics from a Bruce Springsteen song? An embarrassment of riches.

A number of judicial opinions have quoted lyrics from Springsteen. His vivid descriptions and observations of everyday life, the human spirit and ordinary folks just trying to get by, offer countless opportunities for comparison to the real-life dramas that so-often come before courts. But it’s more than just opportunity. Judges who turn to Bruce’s words, when crafting their opinions, also have motive. Doing so no doubt makes them look hip, as well as creating the possibility that their efforts – otherwise possibly destined for the black hole of judicial opinions – may now get noticed. Lawyers don’t forward cases about diversity of citizenship. But if the case happens to quote lyrics from a Springsteen song, it’s another story. Hey, check out this diversity case with Bruce lyrics. That’s how the e-mail from one lawyer-Springsteen fan to another will surely read.

Until last week I had never seen a coverage case quote Springsteen lyrics. And I just checked. As far as I can tell Miami Yacht Charters, LLC v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 11-21136 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2015) is only the second. [The first, er, incident, was Farr Man Coffee Inc. v. Chester (S.D.N.Y. 1993), using Badlands lyrics in the context of insurable interest. The inaugural case should have been from a Nebraska court.]

As a life-long Bruce fan, and insurance coverage enthusiast, imagine my delight when I read this gem of an opening paragraph from Judge Jonathan Goodman in Miami Yacht Charters: “In the well-known ‘No Surrender’ song released on his ‘Born in the U.S.A.’ album, Bruce Springsteen noted, ‘Well, we made a promise we swore we’d always remember, no retreat, baby, no surrender.’ Springsteen’s ‘no surrender’ philosophy may be fine for a rock and roll song about the importance of being true to one’s own dreams and beliefs, but it is frequently unhelpful in litigation. It is particularly inapplicable and inappropriate here.”

As for what the particular no-surrendering was that displeased Judge Goodman, it arose in the context of coverage litigation involving a marine insurance policy. His Honor summarized it like this: “Basically, National Union is extremely unhappy with the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling. While it is understandable for a litigant to be disappointed about an adverse ruling, that attitude by itself is insufficient to cause this Court to ignore the Eleventh Circuit’s clear ruling. National Union is tenacious, to be sure. But the Undersigned is not persuaded by National Union’s dogged, steadfast determination to again revisit the already-decided issue of whether Plaintiffs have met their threshold burden to establish that the cause of the damage to the vessel in question was fortuitous. That issue has been resolved—and the Eleventh Circuit clearly and unequivocally confirmed that the issue is over and that Plaintiffs have met that burden.”

I started to read the opinion but quickly got lost in the flood. It’s one of those that only the parties can really understand. Besides, what’s the point. When a case quotes Bruce in the opening paragraph, it has but one place to go from there.

Sitting here in my office, on the streets of Philadelphia, I was thrilled to see Springsteen lyrics find a place in a coverage decision. And I’ve always liked “No Surrender.” But it’s curious that a different song from the “Born in the USA” album hasn’t yet gotten the nod – “Cover Me.”