Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Parsons v. Continental National American Group, 550 P.2d 94.

49 citing documents.

Acosta v. Phoenix Indemnity Insurance Company Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Acosta v. Phoenix Indemnity Insurance Company Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Group, 113 Ariz. 223, 229
Himes v. Safeway Insurance 66 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Himes v. Safeway Insurance 66 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Group, , Ariz. R. Sup.Ct.
Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A. 24 P.3d 593 Ariz. 2001
Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A. 24 P.3d 593 Ariz. 2001
Group, , to support the proposition that an express agreement is necessary to form an attorney-client relationship.
Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A. 2 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A. 2 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
aff'd in part, vacated in part
In Re Estate of Fogleman 3 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. v. Fegen 3 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Estate of Fogleman 3 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Group, , (discussing duty of insured's attorney who is compensated by insurer)).
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. v. Fegen 3 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Group, , (discussing duty of insured’s attorney who is compensated by insurer)).
Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 943 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 943 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Group, , where the supreme court held that the insurer was estopped from asserting an intentional act exclusion.
Fobes v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 861 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Fobes v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 861 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Group, , Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Ins.
Matter of Estate of Shano 869 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of Estate of Shano 869 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 860 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 860 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Deese v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 838 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1992
Deese v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 838 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1992
Group, , Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Ins.
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD 747 P.2d 1218 Ariz. 1987
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD 747 P.2d 1218 Ariz. 1987
precludes the existence of an agency relationship between the attorney and the insurer that assigned him to the defense.
Ford v. Revlon, Inc. 734 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1987
Ford v. Revlon, Inc. 734 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1987
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Bradshaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 758 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Rawlings v. Apodaca 726 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1986
Rawlings v. Apodaca 726 P.2d 565 Ariz. 1986
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD 747 P.2d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD 747 P.2d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
the supreme court stated as follows: “When an attorney who is an insurance company’s agent uses the confidential relationship between an attorney and a client to gather information so as to deny the insured coverage under the policy in the garnishment proceeding we hold that such conduct
Equity General Insurance v. C & a Realty Co. 715 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
McGough v. Ins. Co. of North America 691 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
McGough v. Ins. Co. of North America 691 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Lake Havasu Community Hospital, Inc. v. Arizona Title Insurance 687 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
LAKE HAVASU COM. HOSP. v. Ariz. Title Ins. 687 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
LAKE HAVASU COM. HOSP. v. Ariz. Title Ins. 687 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Lake Havasu Community Hospital, Inc. v. Arizona Title Insurance 687 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
PARSONS VIOLATION Count three of Community Hospital’s
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A. 653 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A. 653 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Noble v. National American Life Insurance 624 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Noble v. National American Life Insurance 624 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
General Accident Fire &amp
Continental Life & Accident Co. v. Songer 603 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Continental Life & Accident Co. v. Songer 603 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
at 4; , General Accident Fire &amp
Lockhart v. Allstate Insurance 579 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Lockhart v. Allstate Insurance 579 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Appellants also contend, , that Allstate should be estopped to deny coverage and has waived the intentional act exclusion because it took advantage of the fiduciary relationship between its agent (the attorney who represented Lockhart in the tort action) and its insured.