Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Republic Insurance v. Feidler, 875 P.2d 187.

32 citing documents.

Schapker v. Ketzler-Naughton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Schapker v. Ketzler-Naughton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“When an insured assigns his right to sue his insurer under a liability policy, the assignee takes only those rights that the defendant had.”).
Borowsky v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Borowsky v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
PUEBLO SANTA FE TOWNHOMES OWNERS'ASS'N v. Transcontinental Insurance Co. 178 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
PUEBLO SANTA FE TOWNHOMES OWNERS'ASS'N v. Transcontinental Insurance Co. 178 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
see also Manterola v. Farmers Ins.
Williams v. Baugh 154 P.3d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Williams v. Baugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Williams v. Baugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Co. v. Feidler, 178 Ariz. 528, 533, see also K.B.
Williams v. Baugh 154 P.3d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
In Re Clark 87 P.3d 827 Ariz. 2004
In Re Clark 87 P.3d 827 Ariz. 2004
Co. v. Feidler, 178 Ariz. 528, 531, (stating that “intent to injure is a fact question”).
American Family Mutual Insurance v. White 65 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
American Family Mutual Insurance v. White 65 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Jeffries v. Hassell 3 P.3d 1071 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Jeffries v. Hassell 3 P.3d 1071 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Harvest v. Craig 990 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Harvest v. Craig 990 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(in the face of competing reasonable inferences, summary judgment is not proper).
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 969 P.2d 173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 969 P.2d 173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In Republic Insurance Co. v. Feidler (Feidler I), , we reversed the judgment and remanded, finding that Davis’s intoxication and his capacity to form intent created a genuine issue of material fact.
Western Agricultural Insurance v. Brown 985 P.2d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Western Agricultural Insurance v. Brown 985 P.2d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
where an “act was intentional and there was either a subjective desire to cause some specific harm (intent) or substantial certainty (expectation) some significant harm would occur, the insured will not be heard to say that the exclusion does not apply because the injury was more s
Chicago Insurance v. Manterola 955 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Chicago Insurance v. Manterola 955 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
The cases on which she relies, Meere, , , , , do not support this proposition.
K.B. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 941 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
K.B. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 941 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(quoting Transamerica Ins.
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. DeValencia 949 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. DeValencia 949 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
St Paul Property & Lied).
Ortiz v. Clinton 928 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Ortiz v. Clinton 928 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The Ortizes contend that intoxication’s effect on a person’s mental state is a question of fact
State v. Lamberton 899 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1995
State v. Lamberton 899 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1995
(holding that victim was not party to criminal proceeding and had no opportunity to litigate issues).