Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite McGough v. Ins. Co. of North America, 691 P.2d 738.
- Heritage v. Weinberg 443 P.3d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Heritage v. Weinberg
443 P.3d 964
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Co. of N. Am., ("[A]n order denying intervention is an appealable order .
- Woodbridge Structured Funding, LLC v. Arizona Lottery 326 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Woodbridge Structured Funding, LLC v. Arizona Lottery 326 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Monterey Homes Arizona, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Insurance 212 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- Monterey Homes Arizona, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Insurance 212 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
-
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood
98 P.3d 572
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Co. of N. Am., , see also Waddell v. Titan Ins.
- Mora v. Phoenix Indemnity Insurance 996 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-
Mora v. Phoenix Indemnity Insurance
996 P.2d 116
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Arizona courts repeatedly have recognized that, because collateral estoppel generally will apply, the insurance company has the “requisite interest under Rule 24(a) to be entitled to intervention.” , ( , ).
- State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Dodd 888 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
-
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Dodd
888 P.2d 1370
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See State v. O’Connor, , -30 , -42 (App.1984); Ariz.R.Civ.App.P.
- Purvis v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 877 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
-
Purvis v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
877 P.2d 827
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
edure, allows intervention as a matter of right upon a timely application “when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest.” -31 , -43 (App.1984), this court held that when an insured has entered into a Damron -type agreement, the insurer has a right to intervene pursuant to
- H.B.H. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 823 P.2d 1332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
- H.B.H. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 823 P.2d 1332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
- Winner Enterprises, Ltd. v. Superior Court 765 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
-
Winner Enterprises, Ltd. v. Superior Court
765 P.2d 116
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
(citing McGough v. Insurance Co. of North America, 143 * , -77 , 297 P. 868, 870-71 (1931)).
- Anderson v. Martinez 762 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- Anderson v. Martinez 762 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- Stufflebeam v. Canadian Indemnity Co. 754 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
- Stufflebeam v. Canadian Indemnity Co. 754 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
- Goglia v. Bodnar 749 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Goglia v. Bodnar 749 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Morris 741 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1987
-
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Morris
741 P.2d 246
Ariz. 1987
(recognizing but rejecting majority rule); 6 Continental Insurance Co. v. Bayless and Roberts, Inc., Norton v. Farmers Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, 40 Cal.App.2d 556 , Boise Motor Car Co. v. St.