Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Porter v. Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 475 P.2d 258.

52 citing documents.

Taylor v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America 9 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2000
Taylor v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America 9 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2000
Federico v. Industrial Commission 923 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Federico v. Industrial Commission 923 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Co., -80 , -64 (refusing to address issues raised below but not argued on appeal), modified on other grounds
Mancillas v. PROPERTY & CAS. INS. FUND 897 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Mancillas v. PROPERTY & CAS. INS. FUND 897 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
as support for his motion.
Mancillas v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 897 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Mancillas v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 897 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
as support for Ms motion.
Lowing v. Allstate Insurance 859 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1993
Lowing v. Allstate Insurance 859 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1993
Co., , we held that an insured who recovers less than the statutory minimum amount of coverage from a negligent motorist because the negligent driver’s liability insurance is split among multiple claimants may recover the balance (i.e., up to the statutory minimum) from his or her uninsured motorist co
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Cobb 837 P.2d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Cobb 837 P.2d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Co., , mandates recovery of liability benefits from Bonneville as well as uninsured coverage from State Farm.
Duran v. Hartford Insurance 755 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Duran v. Hartford Insurance 755 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Co., , and State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Brudnock 727 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1986
Spain v. Valley Forge Insurance 731 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Spain v. Valley Forge Insurance 731 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Herring v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. 697 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1985
Herring v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. 697 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1985
Bakken v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 678 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Bakken v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 678 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Bakken v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 678 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Bakken v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 678 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Eden 666 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1983
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Eden 666 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1983
The question becomes, what impact, if any, did section (B) have on the prior judicially-defined concept of “uninsured.” , as the case which points the way to their desired result.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Eden 666 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Eden 666 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Co., , , modified, , points in the direction of their position, and that the legislature must have intended such a result because otherwise a victim would be anomalously better off to be struck by an unin *470 sured motorist than by one who had insurance in the minimum statut
Anderson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 652 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1982
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Herron 599 P.2d 768 Ariz. 1979
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Herron 599 P.2d 768 Ariz. 1979
We considered the difference between theoretical coverage and actual coverage in Porter v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co., , , modified on other grounds
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Tarantino 561 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Tarantino 561 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
Balestrieri v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Insurance 540 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1975
Balestrieri v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Insurance 540 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1975
as illustrative of a broad and expansive construction of the words “uninsured motor vehicles.” In Porter , we held that an insured, who was injured in an automobile accident caused solely by the negligence of another and who, because of a four-way division of the negligent driver’s liability ins
Williams v. Williams 531 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Williams v. Williams 531 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
modified , the Supreme Court, in vacating a decision of Division 2 of the Court of Appeals, said: We agree with the principle that the person who avails himself of the protection afforded by uninsured motorist coverage should be permitted to recover as if the tort-fe
Balestrieri v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Insurance 526 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Balestrieri v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Insurance 526 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
our Supreme Court held that an insured was entitled under § 20-259.01 to recover $7,500 under his uninsured vehicle endorsement despite the fact that the negligent driver had $10,000 in liability insurance [the minimum amount under § 28-1142 of the Safety Responsibility Act] when the $10,000 was
Verdex Steel & Construction Co. v. Board of Supervisors 509 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Verdex Steel & Construction Co. v. Board of Supervisors 509 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
The other cases decided as a part of the 8 October 1970 , , which opinion was modified on rehearing
Allstate Insurance Company v. Pesqueria 508 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Allstate Insurance Company v. Pesqueria 508 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Co., , Harsha v. Fidelity Gen.
Home Insurance Company v. Lomax 498 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Home Insurance Company v. Lomax 498 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Co., , the Arizona Supreme Court citing with approval Continental Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Constr.
State Farm Mutual Insurance v. Superior Court 485 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State Farm Mutual Insurance v. Superior Court 485 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Whether further recovery for Mr. Edgington’s , , modified at , relied upon in our earlier opinion.
State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. Edgington 476 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. Edgington 476 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
As to appellant’s argument that the exclusion clause should apply because the policy is a contract and shows the intention of the parties, , recently decided by our state supreme court is controlling.
Transportation Insurance Company v. Wade 475 P.2d 253 Ariz. 1970
Bacchus v. Farmers Insurance Group Exchange 475 P.2d 264 Ariz. 1970