Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bacchus v. Farmers Insurance Group Exchange, 475 P.2d 264.

39 citing documents.

Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 145 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 145 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
in which our supreme court rejected a UIM policy offset provision for medical ex *545 penses paid under an automobile liability policy, stating “[p]ermitting offsets of any type would allow insurers, by contract, to alter the provisions of the statute and to escape all or part of the l
Terry v. Auto-Owners Insurance 908 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Terry v. Auto-Owners Insurance 908 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
We start our analysis with an examination of the case on which the holdings in Larriva and Karasek were based—
Schultz v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies 805 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1991
Schultz v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies 805 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1991
in arguing that the legislature intended to require full recovery under both coverages even though, under the circumstances of this case, that would require double payment of the medical expenses.
Rashid v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 787 P.2d 1066 Ariz. 1990
Rashid v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 787 P.2d 1066 Ariz. 1990
Spain v. Valley Forge Insurance 731 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1987
Spain v. Valley Forge Insurance 731 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1987
(invalidating a provision offsetting medical payments against payments made under the UM coverage); Calvert, 144 Ariz. at 294 , 697 P.2d at 687 (holding that the “other vehicle” exclusion violates the public policy underlying the UM statute); Allied Mutual Insurance Co. v. Larriva, 19 Ariz.App.
Warfe v. Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. 589 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Warfe v. Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. 589 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
which struck an offset of medical payments against uninsured motorist coverage because the statute mandates not less than a specified amount of uninsured motorist coverage.
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
Snowberger v. Young 536 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Snowberger v. Young 536 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
1 , vacated on other grounds, , 475 P. *179 2d 264 (1970).
Smitty's Super-Valu, Inc. v. Pasqualetti 525 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Smitty's Super-Valu, Inc. v. Pasqualetti 525 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
1 , vacated on other grounds
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Karasek 523 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Karasek 523 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
*89 , the Arizona Supreme Court held that the provisions of A.R.S.
Migneault v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 519 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Migneault v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 519 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
1 , rev’d on other grounds
Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Company 207 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1973
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
We recognize that the Court of Appeals opinion in Bacchus was vacated on review by our Supreme Court in a case by the same name reported at , of which we comment later in this opinion.
Allied Mutual Insurance Company v. Larriva 507 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Allied Mutual Insurance Company v. Larriva 507 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Group Exch., , our Supreme Court considered and disapproved of the reduction of uninsured motorist coverage by the amount of payments made under the Medical Payments Provision in the policy.
Jeanes v. Arrow Insurance Company 494 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Jeanes v. Arrow Insurance Company 494 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Rossini 482 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Rossini 482 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Group, , is dispositive of this issue, requiring reversal of the judgment as to the setoff allowances.
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
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Chiate 476 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Chiate 476 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Transportation Insurance Company v. Wade 475 P.2d 253 Ariz. 1970
Porter v. Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company 475 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1970
Porter v. Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company 475 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1970
In another opinion handed down this day, , , we referred to a rule employed by many courts in similar cases that “the insured is entitled to recover the same amount he would have recovered if the offending motorist had maintained liability insurance.” See e. g. Stephens v. Allied Mutual Insurance Company, supra.
Transportation Insurance Company v. Wade 475 P.2d 253 Ariz. 1970
decided this date, we took a dim view of the carriers’ lack of enthusiasm to fully abide by their liability within the limits imposed by A.R.S.