Cited by

See Sparks v. Republic Nat’l. Life Ins.

—which held that attorney fees may be awarded as long as “the cause of action in tort could not exist but for the breach of the contract” Marcus, 150 Ariz. at 335 (quoting Sparks, 132 Ariz. at 542)—our supreme court decided the “arising out of a contract” language “is not limited to only those cases in which a c

Co., that claim for breach of the implied-in-law covenant of good faith and fair dealing imputed into an insurance contract “arises out of a contract” under § 12- 341.01(A)).

Co., (stating that because “the tort of bad faith cannot be committed absent the existence of an insurance contract and a breach thereof,” the tort of bad faith is “intrinsically related to the contract,” such that attorneys’ fees may be awarded under A.R.S.

Co., (“The fact that the two legal theories are intertwined does not preclude recovery of attorney’s fees under § 12-341.01(A) as long as the cause of action in tort could not exist but for the breach of the contract.”) (emphasis added).

Co., 7 EQUITY INCOME PARTNERS V. CHICAGO TITLE Opinion of the Court (1982) (an insurance policy “must be read as a whole in order to give a reasonable and harmonious meaning and effect to all its provisions”) (quoting Fed

Co., -38 , -36 (1982) (providing that fail *73 ure to object to jury instructions results in waiver on appeal with respect to any error in sequence of reading instructions and errors in the instructions given).

Co., –45, –43 (1982) (holding that there is no violation of due process when “[a] full hearing was conducted on the issue of attorney’s fees”).

Co., (finding it “reversible error to instruct the jury on a legal theory which is not supported by the evidence”).

Co., (“The fact that the two legal theories are intertwined does not preclude recovery of attorney’s fees under § 12- 341.01(A) as long as the cause of action in tort could not exist but for the breach of the contract.”).

Co., (“The language is broad enough, however, that it could be argued, as plaintiffs do here, that attorney’s fees may be recoverable in tort cases which find their basis in contract.”).

Co., and examine the language “from the viewpoint of one not trained in law or the insurance business.” Samsel v. Allstate Ins.

Co., (analyzing insurance contract and stating that ambiguity exists when language “can be reasonably construed in more than one sense”).

Co., P.2d 1127 (1982) P.2d 1186 (1976) for the proposition that the statue of limitations defense is waived only if not raised prior to the entry of a final, appealable judgment.

Co., , (concluding that an action alleging insurance bad faith is one “arising out of contract” within the meaning of § 12-341.01(A)).

Co., -43, -41 (1982); Ramsey Air Meds, 6 P.3d at 318; Amphitheater Pub.