Cited by

Co., ¶ 34 (App. 2012) (denying a party’s request for attorneys’ fees because the party “cit[ed] only ARCAP 21, which does not provide a substantive basis for a fee award”).

Co., ¶ 34 (App. 2012) (discussing ARCAP 21).

Co., ¶¶ 13-14 (App. 2012) (holding that an UIM coverage dispute arises out of contract for purposes of A.R.S.

Co., ¶ 32 (App. 2012) (noting the trial court’s discretion to determine who is a successful party for awarding costs under § 12–341, which mandates an award to such party).

Co., –21, ¶ 12 (App. 2012) (quoting Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A–D, ).

Co., ¶ 32 (App. 2012) (noting the superior court has “substantial discretion” in determining who is the successful party for the purposes of costs).

Co. , , ¶¶ 10, 13, 21-22, (action by insured against insurer for failure to pay uninsured motorist benefits under policy arose out of contract and did not sound in tort; attorney fees awarded under § 12-341.01(A) for failure to pay policy benefits not damages caused by uninsured driver), and Proctor

Co. , , 221, ¶ 13, , 673 (App. 2012).

Co., (citation omitted).

-21, ¶¶ 10-14 (App. 2012).

Co., ¶¶ 22–24 (App. 2012).