Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance, 682 P.2d 388.

273 citing documents.

1800 OCOTILLO, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc. 196 P.3d 222 Ariz. 2008
1800 OCOTILLO, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc. 196 P.3d 222 Ariz. 2008
In this regard, Ocotillo contends that the liability limitation was not freely and knowingly negotiated between the parties as required by SRP or it was contrary to Ocotillo’s reasonable expectations under the doctrine established in Darner Motor Sales, -92, -97 (1984).
First American Title Insurance v. Action Acquisitions, LLC 187 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2008
First American Title Insurance v. Action Acquisitions, LLC 187 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2008
14 Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co., 140 Ariz. 383
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. DGG & Car, Inc. 183 P.3d 513 Ariz. 2008
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. DGG & Car, Inc. 183 P.3d 513 Ariz. 2008
Co., -90, -95 (1984) (recognizing the doctrine of reasonable expectations in contract law).
Webb v. Gittlen 174 P.3d 275 Ariz. 2008
Webb v. Gittlen 174 P.3d 275 Ariz. 2008
Co., (holding that such a duty exists)).
First American Title Insurance Co. v. Action Acquisitions, LLC 169 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
First American Title Insurance Co. v. Action Acquisitions, LLC 169 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 19 Citing Darner Motor Sales, , Purchasers argue the Policy was a contract of adhesion and that they reasonably expected that Exclusion 5 would not bar coverage if the sale were set aside.
Banner Health v. Medical Savings Insurance 163 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
STATE FARM FIRE & CAS. IN. CO. v. Grabowski 150 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
STATE FARM FIRE & CAS. IN. CO. v. Grabowski 150 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Co., , Restatement (Second) of Contracts ("Restatement") § 211 (1981).
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 132 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2006
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 132 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2006
Co., -90, -95 (1984) (recognizing the doctrine of reasonable expectations in contract law).
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp. 119 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp. 119 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Co., , (“In adopting this rule [of reasonable expectations] we do not create a special field of contract law____”); Maxwell v. Fid.
Miller v. Hehlen 104 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Miller v. Hehlen 104 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Co., , (recognizing that "most provisions of standardized agreements are not the result of negotiation; often, neither customer nor salesperson are aware of the contract provisions”).
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Co., (“First announced in Darner, the doctrine of reasonable expectations relieves a party from ‘certain clauses of an agreement which he did not negotiate, probably did not read, and probably would not have understood had he read them.’”).
Premium Cigars Intern. v. Farmer-Butler-Leavitt Ins. 96 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Premium Cigars Intern. v. Farmer-Butler-Leavitt Ins. 96 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Kuehn v. Stanley, Charter Funding, First Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Kuehn v. Stanley, Charter Funding, First Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
he property value in the loan agreement was “boiler-plate language” and that the trial court erred in concluding that this language was enforceable because the loan application “[wa]s only two pages long, most of which [wa]s blank space, and the language [wa]s comprehensible.” In Darner Motor 14 Sales, P.2d 338 (1984), the supreme court adopted Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 211 (1981) to govern the enforcement of boilerplate language in standardized contracts.
American Family Mutual Insurance v. White 65 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
American Family Mutual Insurance v. White 65 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 59 P.3d 281 Ariz. 2002
Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 59 P.3d 281 Ariz. 2002
Castillo v. Miller's Mutual Fire Insurance 25 P.3d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Castillo v. Miller's Mutual Fire Insurance 25 P.3d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Barerra 21 P.3d 395 Ariz. 2001
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Barerra 21 P.3d 395 Ariz. 2001
¶ 7 We hold that the DUI exclusion in the present policy violates the reasonable expectations doctrine of Darner Motor Sales, , Gordinier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 14 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2000
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 14 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2000
Taylor v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America 9 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2000
Taylor v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America 9 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2000
Co., -90 , , 394 — 95 (1984), because Plaintiff did not raise either her subjective reasonable expectations or the objective and general reasonable expectations of consumers arising from the very nature of the product purchased.
Haisch v. Allstate Insurance 5 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Haisch v. Allstate Insurance 5 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Barerra 998 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Barerra 998 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Radkowsky v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance 993 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Radkowsky v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance 993 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 15 Next Dr. Radkowsky argues that there is a factual issue as to whether he had reasonable expectations that the policies would encompass this situation, , for the proposition that a contracting party’s reasonable expectation may affect the enforceability of non-negotiated terms in a standardized agreement.
In Re the Marriage of Zale 972 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1999
In Re the Marriage of Zale 972 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1999
Co., , Sam Levitz Furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores, Inc., -31 , -14 (1970)).
Consumers International, Inc. v. SYSCO Corp. 951 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Consumers International, Inc. v. SYSCO Corp. 951 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
This general rule has been modified by Arizona courts in some limited circumstances, however, when enforcement of contractual terms may be either unconscionable because of the unequal bargaining power of the parties, see Darner Motor Sales, , or contravene public policy
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Voss 935 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Voss 935 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Co., , is supportable on this record.
Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Henderson 939 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1997