Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Zuckerman v. Transamerica Insurance, 650 P.2d 441.

51 citing documents.

Weber v. Kory Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Weber v. Kory Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
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
However, in Zuckerman v. Transamerica Insurance Co. , , our supreme court commented on an insurer’s argument that the insured must first “incur” overhead and profit expenses before the insurer is obligated to pay for such expenses: Because Zuckerman did not intend to use the insurance proceeds to rebuild, the company took the position that
Decca Design Build, Inc. v. American Automobile Insurance 77 P.3d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Decca Design Build, Inc. v. American Automobile Insurance 77 P.3d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Co., -43 , -45 (1982) (upholding an insurance policy’s one-year limitations period, which was significantly shorter than the six-year statutory period applicable to written contracts).
Nangle v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 73 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Nangle v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 73 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Salerno v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance 6 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Salerno v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance 6 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Co., , (condition shortening time to file suit unenforceable if it would result in unjust forfeiture); Liberty Mutual, 192 Ariz. at 224 , 963 P.2d at 303 (delay alone is not prejudice).
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. Mandile 963 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. Mandile 963 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
the court held that it would not enforce a notice clause when to do so would defeat the basic intent of the parties to the insurance transaction.
Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP 919 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP 919 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Averett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 869 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1994
Averett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 869 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1994
Where the insured did not receive full and adequate notice of the term in question, and the provision is either unusual or unexpected, or one that emasculates apparent coverage [ , ]; 3.
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Pruett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 857 P.2d 1301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Pruett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 857 P.2d 1301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Angus Medical Co. v. Digital Equipment Corp. 840 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Angus Medical Co. v. Digital Equipment Corp. 840 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Broemmer v. Otto 821 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Do by Minker v. Farmers Ins. Co. 828 P.2d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Do by Minker v. Farmers Ins. Co. 828 P.2d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Co., , Sparks v. Republic National Life Ins.
Broemmer v. Otto 821 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Walter v. Simmons 818 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Co., -47 , -49 (1982) (insurer estopped from enforcing limitation clause when not prejudiced, when enforcement would work an injustice to the plaintiff, and would not serve purpose for which limitation clause exists).
O'Reilly v. Allstate Insurance Co. 474 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Ritchie v. Grand Canyon Scenic Rides 799 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1990
Ritchie v. Grand Canyon Scenic Rides 799 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1990
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Dimmer 773 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Dimmer 773 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Where the insured did not receive full and adequate notice of the term in question, and the provision is either unusual or unexpected, or one that emasculates apparent coverage (see Zuckerman [v. Transamerica Insurance Co., , ], supra; 3.
Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Andersen 763 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1988
Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Andersen 763 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1988
Co., , Kepner v. Western Fire Ins.
Gordinier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 742 P.2d 277 Ariz. 1987
Gordinier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 742 P.2d 277 Ariz. 1987
accord Darner, 140 Ariz. at 393 , 682 P.2d at 398 ; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 211 comment b (1979) 6 (party who regularly uses standardized forms does not ordinarily expect customers to understand or even to read standard terms); Mayhew, Reasonable Expectations: Seeking a Pri
Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Andersen 763 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Andersen 763 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Co., , the court held that while a policy provision shortening the applicable statutory period for bringing an action on an insurance policy is valid under A.R.S.
Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Dooley's of Tucson, Inc. 716 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Dooley's of Tucson, Inc. 716 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 717 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 717 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Even the “reasonable expectation of the parties” line of cases admits that an explicit clause which limits or affects coverage “will be enforced when the reasons for its existence are thereby served and will not be applied when to do so would be to defeat the basic intent of the parties in entering into the insurance transaction.”
American National Fire Insurance v. Esquire Labs of Arizona, Inc. 694 P.2d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
American National Fire Insurance v. Esquire Labs of Arizona, Inc. 694 P.2d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
490 , 74 L.Ed.2d 632 (1982)
Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance 682 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1984
Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance 682 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1984
Co., -46 , -48 (1982); Harr v. Allstate Insurance Co., 54 N.J.
Evenchik v. State Farm Insurance 679 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
EVENCHIC v. State Farm Ins. Co. 679 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
EVENCHIC v. State Farm Ins. Co. 679 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
§ 20-259.01, as amended in 1981, and the doctrine of "reasonable expectations", see Zuckerman v. Transamerica Insurance Company, 133 Ariz. *458 139, , cert.