Cited by

Co., (“[W]e may forego application of the [waiver] rule when justice requires.”).

Co., ¶ 11 (App. 2002) (“It is also significant that both parties have 6 TORRES, et al. v. JAI DINING Opinion of the Court briefed and argued the issue extensively and there is no claim of surprise.” (citing Stokes, 143 Ariz

Co., 146, ¶ 23 (App. 2002) (as amended) (noting policy's inclusion of a "concurrent causation" clause).

Co., ¶ 13 10 AGUILERA, et al. v. SANNES, et al. Decision of the Court (App. 2002).

Co. , , ¶ 11, ("If application of a legal principle ...

Co., ¶ 13 (App. 2002) (appellate court interprets insurance policy “independent of the trial court’s conclusions”).

Co., ¶ 11 (App. 2002) (citation omitted).

Co., ¶ 11, (internal citation omitted).

Co., ¶ 11 , because the waiver rule is procedural rather than jurisdictional.

Co., ¶ 11 , because the waiver rule is procedural rather than jurisdictional.

Co. , , (propriety of summary judgment reviewed de novo); Ariz. Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak , , (issues of law, including contract interpretation, reviewed de novo).

Co., , (on appeal from summary judgment, “court has discretion to read and interpret [contract] correctly and is not necessarily limited to the arguments made by the parties”).

Co., ¶ 6 , (we review propriety of summary judgment de novo); Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak, , (issues of law, including contract interpretation, reviewed de novo).