Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Keggi v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance, 13 P.3d 785.

63 citing documents.

State Farm v. Orlando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State Farm v. Orlando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Fidelity National v. Osborn III Partners LLC Ariz. 2023
Fidelity National v. Osborn III Partners LLC Ariz. 2023
Pierce v. Ducey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Pierce v. Ducey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Flagstaff v. Desert Mountain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Flagstaff v. Desert Mountain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Co., ¶ 10 (App. 2000) (quoting Samaritan Health Servs.
Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Co., ¶ 10 (App. 2000) (quotation omitted).
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ins., ¶ 10 (App. 2000) (quoting Samaritan Health Servs.
Nolan v. Hsb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Nolan v. Hsb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Co., § 11 (App. 2000) (construing insurance contract under its plain and ordinary meaning).
Aims Insurance v. National Fire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Aims Insurance v. National Fire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ins., ¶ 11 (App. 2000) (internal 1 “Spoofing” is a term used to describe “the practice of disguising a commercial e-mail to make the e-mail appear to come from an address from which it actually did not originate.” Medidata Sols., Inc. v. Fed.
Secura v. Sudhoff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Secura v. Sudhoff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Co., ¶ 10 (App. 2000) (quoting Samaritan Health Servs.
Aguilera v. Sannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Aguilera v. Sannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Starr Surplus v. Transwestern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Relying primarily on Keggi v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance Co., (review denied Oct.
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Udall 424 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Udall 424 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Co. , , 46, ¶ 11, , 788 (App. 2000) ("Interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law which we review de novo .").
Hanfelder v. GEICO Indem. Co. 422 P.3d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hanfelder v. GEICO Indem. Co. 422 P.3d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Co. , , 46, ¶ 13, , 788 (App. 2000) ("Generally, the insured bears the burden to establish coverage under an insuring clause").
Az Biltmore v. Abr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Az Biltmore v. Abr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., ¶ 10 (App. 2000) (quoting Samaritan Health Servs.
Russell Piccoli P.L.C. v. O'Donnell 344 P.3d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Russell Piccoli P.L.C. v. O'Donnell 344 P.3d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., ¶ 10 , (citation omitted).
Roberts v. Del Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Roberts v. Del Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., ¶ 11, (noting that contracts are construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning); United Cal.
Pachtman v. Pachtman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Pachtman v. Pachtman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., ¶ 10, (internal citation omitted).
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Co., (“[A] justiciable controversy exists if there is ‘an assertion of a right, status, or legal relation in which the plaintiff has a definite interest and a denial of it by the opposing party.’”), quoting Samaritan Health 9 Servs.
Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wolters 831 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2013
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co., ¶ 10 , see also Brewer, 229 Ariz. at 351, ¶ 15 , 275 P.3d at 1271 (holding that court did not have to decide if IRC had standing and capacity to sue since an IRC commissioner had direct interest and capacity to sue after the Governor attempted to remove her from the IRC); Gemstar Ltd.
Colorado Casualty Insurance v. Safety Control Co. 288 P.3d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Colorado Casualty Insurance v. Safety Control Co. 288 P.3d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co., ¶ 11 , and examine the policy’s terms from the standpoint of one untrained in law or the insurance business, Thomas v. Liberty Mut.
Colorado Casualty Insurance v. Safety Control Co. 269 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Colorado Casualty Insurance v. Safety Control Co. 269 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co., ¶ 11 , and examine the policy’s terms from the standpoint of one untrained in law or the insurance business, Thomas v. Liberty Mut.
Canyon Del Rio Investors, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff 258 P.3d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Canyon Del Rio Investors, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff 258 P.3d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Co., ¶ 10 , (“[A] justiciable controversy exists if there is ‘an assertion of a right, status, or legal relation in which the plaintiff has a definite interest and a denial of it by the opposing party.’”) (quoting Samaritan Health Servs.
Hunt v. Richardson 163 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007