Initial findings of an empirical study of the citations of 80 reported Singapore insurance judgments between 1965 and 2010 show that Singapore courts have not developed a stronger character in the area of insurance law. Though British cases represent 363 of the 512 cases cited, we find that jurisdiction is not a predicator of whether a case is followed or distinguished. However, being a case decided by the UK Supreme Court (including the former House of Lords and Privy Council) is more likely to be followed by Singapore courts regarding insurance law. Nonetheless, Singapore judges cite more English textbooks than local ones. There are also more cases cited when UK statutes are considered. While we may have found some indicators for an English case to be followed, there is no strong indicator of how likely an English case is distinguished. Thus, the perception that Singapore insurance law follows English law is partly correct; but the dominance of English law is not as strong as commonly believed.