Cited by

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

273 citing documents.

Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Henderson 939 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1997
Napier v. Bertram 937 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Napier v. Bertram 937 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Co., , (in lessor’s third-party action for indemnification of its liability to lessee, insurance agent had duty to lessor/insured to exercise degree of care ordinarily expected from others in profession); Continental Life & Acc.
Nestle Ice Cream Co. v. Fuller 924 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Explained Nestle Ice Cream Co. v. Fuller 924 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Co., , : [T]he interpretation of a negotiated agreement is not limited to the words set forth in the document.
Environmental Liners, Inc. v. Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite 930 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Environmental Liners, Inc. v. Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite 930 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Miel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 912 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Miel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 912 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Co., , and Continental Life & Acc.
Southwest Auto Painting & Body Repair, Inc. v. Binsfeld 904 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Southwest Auto Painting & Body Repair, Inc. v. Binsfeld 904 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Nahom v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 885 P.2d 1113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nahom v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 885 P.2d 1113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Anderson v. Country Life Insurance 886 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Terry v. Gaslight Square Associates 897 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Pavilion Hotel, Inc. v. Valley National Bank 885 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Terry v. Gaslight Square Associates 897 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Co., , “[t]he standard boilerplate definition of the ...
Anderson v. Country Life Insurance 886 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Since Darner Motor Sales, , we no longer arrive at “artificial results derived from application of ordinary rules of contract construction to insurance policies.” Instead, Arizona follows the principle of the “reasonable expectations” of the insured.
Pavilion Hotel, Inc. v. Valley National Bank 885 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Co., -94 , -99 (1984) (in boilerplate agreement, even unambiguous terms of an agreement will not defeat parties reasonable expectations).
Phoenix Baptist Hospital & Medical Center, Inc. v. Aiken 877 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Phoenix Baptist Hospital & Medical Center, Inc. v. Aiken 877 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Falness 872 P.2d 1233 Ariz. 1994
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Falness 872 P.2d 1233 Ariz. 1994
State Farm appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which then presented us with a certified question that we have divided and reformulated as follows: 1) Whether the named insured exclusion is facially invalid under Darner Motor Sales, , and its progeny; and, 2) Whether the doctrine of reasonable expectations applies to the named insured exclusion, and if so, under what circumstances.
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
See Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, Ltd., -52 , -17 (1992); Darner Motor Sales v. Uni *533 versal Underwriters, -94 , -99 (1984); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 211 cmt.
Services Holding Co. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 883 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Services Holding Co. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 883 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
The Arizona Supreme Court explained the doctrine of reasonable expectations in Darner Motor Sales
Estate of Ball v. American Motorists Insurance 874 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Estate of Ball v. American Motorists Insurance 874 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. 880 P.2d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. 880 P.2d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Co., , Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 211.
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
Co., -93 , -98 (1984); John D. Calamari & Joseph M. Perillo, The Law of Contracts §§ 3-2 to 3-16, at 135-77 (3d ed. 1987); Robert L. Gottsfield, Darner Motor Sales v. Universal Underwriters: Corbin, Williston and the Continued Viability of the Parol Evidence Rule in Arizona, 25 Ariz.St.L.J.
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Co., , and other Arizona cases, required the trial judge granting summary judgment to consider the prior negotiations and discussions of the parties to ascertain whether the written guaranty was a completely integrated agreement.
AROK Construction Co. v. Indian Construction Services 848 P.2d 870 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
I am enclosing a copy of the first and fifth pages of Darner Motor Sales
AROK Construction Co. v. Indian Construction Services 848 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Co., , Richard Speidel, Restatement Second: Omitted Terms and Contract Method, 67 Cornell L.Rev.
Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1992
Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1992
Co., , this court used the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 211 (Standardized Agreements), as a guide to analyzing, among other things, contracts that contain non-negotiated terms.
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
V. Angus also contends that the eighteen-month limitation term may be excluded from the contract under the reasoning of Darner Motor Sales, , and its progeny.
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., , Zuckerman v. Transamerica Ins.
Broemmer v. Otto 821 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 821 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1991
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 821 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1991
Co., , (citing Gulf Ins.
Ferguson v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross Insurance Agency, Inc. 831 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991