Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Walter v. Simmons, 818 P.2d 214.

42 citing documents.

WAGNER v. ARIZONA MUNICIPAL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
WAGNER v. ARIZONA MUNICIPAL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Simmons, (“[A]n insurer who owes the legally imposed duty of good faith to its insureds cannot escape liability for a breach of that duty by delegating it to another, regardless of how the relationship of that third party is characterized.”); Meineke v. GAB Bus.
Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson 539 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
(“A new trial based on a claim of counsel misconduct is never granted as a disciplinary matter; rather, it should only be granted for a cause that materially affects the rights of the aggrieved party.”).
Pravati v. Randolph Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Pravati v. Randolph Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Simmons & Others, n.3 (App. 1991) (no prejudice when appellant was found not liable for the alleged damages).
Arizona Biltmore v. Conlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Arizona Biltmore v. Conlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Yanes v. Maricopa County 294 P.3d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Yanes v. Maricopa County 294 P.3d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 56 We agree with Mendoza, and McDonald’s has not argued to the contrary, that under Arizona law, “an insurer who owes the legally imposed duty of good faith to its insured [ ] cannot escape liability for a breach of that duty by delegating it to another, regardless of how the relationship of that third party is characterized.”
Law v. Verde Valley Medical Center 170 P.3d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Law v. Verde Valley Medical Center 170 P.3d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, -31 , -17 (App.1995); -41 , -26 (App. 1991).
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, -31 , -17 (App.1995); -41 , -26 (App. 1991).
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(finding that jury verdicts that find a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but no breach of contract are not necessarily inconsistent).
Trustmark Insurance v. Bank One, Arizona, NA 48 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Trustmark Insurance v. Bank One, Arizona, NA 48 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
P. 49(c); 8 , (appropriate for tidal court to resubmit verdicts to jury to reconsider pertinent instructions when verdicts were potentially inconsistent).
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 917 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1996
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 917 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1996
See, , Udall, Evidence § 82, at 166-67.
Soto v. Brinkerhoff 903 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Soto v. Brinkerhoff 903 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
’s counsel requested that MLH “be included as a nonparty at fault because the court has already stated that Dr. Dawson would be included.” Although Soto acknowledges that her request constitutes invited error, she nonetheless argues that the court erred in giving the instruction because of “the lack of sufficient evidence of fault by MLH.” In support of her argument, , in which Division One of this court held that even though a party invites the giving of an erroneous instruction, the trial cour
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Corp., , , , , Wyatt, 167 Ariz. at 281 , 806 P.2d at 870 .
Daniels v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 868 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Daniels v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 868 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Fobes v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 861 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Fobes v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 861 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(“Although the duty of good faith is inherent in any insurance contract, it is not strictly a contractual obligation; rather, it is an obligation imposed by law that governs the insurer in discharging its contractual responsibilities.
Deese v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 838 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1992
Deese v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 838 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1992
(“Although the duty of good faith is inherent in any insurance contract, it is not strictly a contractual obligation; rather, it is an obligation imposed by law that governs the insurer in discharging its contractual responsibilities.”); Tank v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 1