Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Knapp, 484 P.2d 180.

40 citing documents.

Cvs Pharmacy v. Hon. bostwick/tucson Medical Ariz. 2021
Cvs Pharmacy v. Hon. bostwick/tucson Medical Ariz. 2021
Estate v. Recoveryet Al. 326 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Estate v. Recoveryet Al. 326 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Webb v. Gittlen 174 P.3d 275 Ariz. 2008
Webb v. Gittlen 174 P.3d 275 Ariz. 2008
Sun Valley Financial Services of Phoenix, L.L.C. v. Guzman 134 P.3d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Sun Valley Financial Services of Phoenix, L.L.C. v. Guzman 134 P.3d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Capitol Indemnity v. Fleming Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Capitol Indemnity v. Fleming Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(declining to lift the lid “‘on a [P]andora’s box crammed with both practical and legal problems’” by allowing assignment of personal injury and medical payments claims), quoting Travelers Indem.
Botma v. Huser 39 P.3d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Botma v. Huser 39 P.3d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(quoting Harleysville Mut.
Lingel v. Olbin 8 P.3d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Lingel v. Olbin 8 P.3d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
538, 541 , we explained that the non-assignability rule prevents “unscrupulous people” from “traffic[king] in law suits for pain and suffering.” In State Farm Fire & , the supreme court cited Harleysville with approval and reaffirmed “the long-recognized and well-established legal principle prohibiting assignment of a cause of action for personal injury.” Id.
Lo Piano v. Hunter 840 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lo Piano v. Hunter 840 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Harleysville Mutual Ins.
Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance v. Vargas 754 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance v. Vargas 754 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Talley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 670 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Talley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 670 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Karp v. Speizer 647 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Karp v. Speizer 647 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
The court recognized the similarity between this agreement and a
Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Court 641 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1982
Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Court 641 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1982
State Farm Fire & , , Martinez v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., supra, and as noted above, the reliability was further eroded by our discussion of the reassignability issue in Stevens v. Textron, Inc., supra: “ * * * That case was decided prior to this Court’s det
Ross v. Superior Court 625 P.2d 890 Ariz. 1981
Ross v. Superior Court 625 P.2d 890 Ariz. 1981
but the Legislature has the power to give the right of acquiring by assignment an interest in a claim to another person.” Id.
Brockman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance 609 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1980
Brockman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance 609 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1980
538, , Restatement, Contracts § 547.
Gallego v. Strickland 589 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Gallego v. Strickland 589 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Allstate Insurance v. Druke 576 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1978
Allstate Insurance v. Druke 576 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1978
Such person shall do nothing after loss to prejudice such rights.”
Quijada v. Pima County General Hospital 576 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Quijada v. Pima County General Hospital 576 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
The agreement in question does not assign a , Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company v. Lea, 2 Ariz.App.
Allstate Insurance v. Druke 576 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Allstate Insurance v. Druke 576 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
K. W. Dart Truck Co. v. Noble 567 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1977
K. W. Dart Truck Co. v. Noble 567 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1977
but the Legislature has the power to give the right of acquiring by assignment an interest in a claim to another person.