Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Federal Insurance Company v. PAT Homes, Inc., 547 P.2d 1050.

57 citing documents.

Equity Income Partners, LP v. Chicago Title Insurance Co. 387 P.3d 1263 Ariz. 2017
Equity Income Partners, LP v. Chicago Title Insurance Co. 387 P.3d 1263 Ariz. 2017
Homes, Inc., overruled in part on other grounds by State Farm Mut.
Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
National Bank v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 975 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
National Bank v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 975 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Commercial Union Insurance v. Lewis & Roca 902 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Commercial Union Insurance v. Lewis & Roca 902 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Homes, Inc., , disapproved by State Farm Mut.
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 854 P.2d 1134 Ariz. 1993
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 854 P.2d 1134 Ariz. 1993
Homes, Inc., -39 , -53 (1976).
Fremont Indemnity Co. v. New England Reinsurance Co. 815 P.2d 403 Ariz. 1991
Fremont Indemnity Co. v. New England Reinsurance Co. 815 P.2d 403 Ariz. 1991
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Corp. v. Advance Roofing & Supply Co. 788 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Corp. v. Advance Roofing & Supply Co. 788 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Homes, Inc., , precludes our adoption of the policy interpretation urged by USF & G. We therefore turn to the other issues presented on appeal.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1989
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1989
Homes, Inc., -39 , -53 (1976) (whenever two courts have disagreed on interpretation of an insurance policy, it must be ambiguous and must be interpreted in favor of the insured).
Busch Development, Inc. v. American Insurance 760 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Busch Development, Inc. v. American Insurance 760 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Behrens v. Aetna Life & Casualty 736 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Behrens v. Aetna Life & Casualty 736 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Homes, Inc., , must, therefore, be construed to provide coverage.
Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance 682 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1984
Criticized Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance 682 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1984
Homes, Inc., , thus, we may find ourselves justly criticized for accepting the inventions of other courts.
Tolifson v. Globe American Casualty Co. 672 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Tolifson v. Globe American Casualty Co. 672 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Gilbreath v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 685 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Gilbreath v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 685 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Homes, Inc., , to the effect that a conflict in cases as to the meaning of an insurance contract establishes its ambiguity controls here.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO., ETC. v. Rick 654 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO., ETC. v. Rick 654 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Homes, Inc., , in support of this proposition.
Barber v. Old Republic Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Barber v. Old Republic Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Federal Insurance Co. v. P. A. T. Homes, Inc.
Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1982
Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1982
However, while an individual clause of an insurance policy, standing alone, might be determined to have no ambiguity, “the policy must be read as a whole in order to give a reasonable and harmonious meaning and effect to all its provisions.” Federal Insurance Co. v. P. A. T. Homes, Inc.
Charbonneau v. Blue Cross of Washington & Alaska 634 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Charbonneau v. Blue Cross of Washington & Alaska 634 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Federal Insurance Co. v. P. A. T. Homes, Inc., , Droz v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co., 1 Ariz.App.
Manning v. Summit Home Insurance 623 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Manning v. Summit Home Insurance 623 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Federal Insurance Co. v. P. A. T. Homes, Inc.
Hampton v. Allstate Insurance 616 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Hampton v. Allstate Insurance 616 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Relying on Federal Insurance Company v. P. A. T. Homes, Inc., , appellant contends that since various jurisdictions have reached different conclusions as to the meaning of limits of liability provision, it is ambiguous and coverage is therefore extended.
Moorhead MacHinery & Boiler Co. v. Employers Commercial Union Insurance Co. of America 285 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1979
Outdoor World v. Continental Casualty Co. 594 P.2d 546 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Explained Outdoor World v. Continental Casualty Co. 594 P.2d 546 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Homes, Inc., , to find an ambiguity.
Thompson v. Government Employees Insurance 592 P.2d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Thompson v. Government Employees Insurance 592 P.2d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Federal Insurance Co. v. P. A. T. Homes, Inc.
Manny v. Avemco Insurance 589 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Manny v. Avemco Insurance 589 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Homes, Inc., , should be applied in this case.
Custom Roofing Co. v. Transamerica Insurance 584 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Custom Roofing Co. v. Transamerica Insurance 584 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Hanson's, Inc. v. Great Southwest Fire Insurance 575 P.2d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978