Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance, 682 P.2d 388.
-
Ferguson v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross Insurance Agency, Inc.
831 P.2d 380
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
to argue that public policy should require an insurance agency be held responsible for injuries caused by its negligence.
- Washington Elementary School District No. 6 v. Baglino Corp. 817 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1991
- Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 813 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1991
-
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal.
813 P.2d 710
Ariz. 1991
(citing 3 A. CORBIN, supra § 582).
- Lubin v. Johnson 820 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
-
Lubin v. Johnson
820 P.2d 328
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Co., , , in relieving persons of the plain terms of writings by reason of separate oral understandings and agreements also undercut those earlier rulings upholding writings induced by misrepresentations.
- Ancell v. Union Station Associates, Inc. 803 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
-
Ancell v. Union Station Associates, Inc.
803 P.2d 450
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Cf. Darner Motor Sales, , (interpretation of a negotiated instrument may be aided by evidence of subsequent conduct); , quoting M.K Transport, Inc. v. Grover, 101 Idaho 345 , 349 n. 5, , 1196 n. 5 (1980) (“An intent to rescind a contrac
- Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 798 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Novak 807 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
-
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal.
798 P.2d 1308
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Co, , : “largely adhesive; some terms are bargained for, but most terms consisting] of boilerplate, not bargained for, neither read nor understood by the buyer, and often not even fully understood by the selling agent.” Not every standardized form, however, constitutes an adhesion contract.
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Novak 807 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- Millar v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 804 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- Millar v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 804 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- Phoenix Control System, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America 796 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1990
- Phoenix Control System, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America 796 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1990
- Shade v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 801 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
-
Shade v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
801 P.2d 441
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
The Shades contend that the Jewells had a reasonable expectation of coverage within the meaning of Darner Motor Sales, , during the time that the alleged negligent act occurred, even if the policies had expired before Michael Shade’s accident.
- Insurance Co. of North America v. Superior Court 784 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- Insurance Co. of North America v. Superior Court 784 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- Ray v. Mangum 788 P.2d 62 Ariz. 1989
- Ray v. Mangum 788 P.2d 62 Ariz. 1989
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Powers 786 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
-
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Powers
786 P.2d 1064
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Co., , is not raised by simply putting the insured on the witness stand and asking him or her: “Did you reasonably expect that you would be covered?” Applicability of the doctrine requires more than the fervent hope that is usually engendered by loss, and the expectations to be realized must be those t
- Federoff v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 788 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
-
Federoff v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
788 P.2d 104
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Co., , was ever made to the trial court.
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1989
- Campbell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 787 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
-
Campbell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
787 P.2d 1083
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
1 The supreme court held in Gordinier that the policy provisions limiting the wife’s coverage because only the husband was named in the declarations page were unenforceable under Darner Motor Sales
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1989
- 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
Additionally, the court concludes that the policy is not ambiguous and the defendants' affidavits do not present a
- Continental Insurance v. McDaniel 772 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
- Continental Insurance v. McDaniel 772 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
- Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
- Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
- Zavala v. Arizona State Personnel Board 766 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
-
Zavala v. Arizona State Personnel Board
766 P.2d 608
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Co., , are “conduct by which one ...
- Dorn v. Robinson 762 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- DeCarlo v. MCSA, INC. 785 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
- Curran v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 752 P.2d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- Dorn v. Robinson 762 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- Curran v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 752 P.2d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
-
DeCarlo v. MCSA, INC.
785 P.2d 592
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Second, , to support their contention that Regina was acting as Microage’s agent in making representations to DeCarlo, thus estopping Microage from denying coverage in accordance with DeCarlo’s understanding of the terms.
- Robson v. Hartford Insurance Group 751 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
-
Robson v. Hartford Insurance Group
751 P.2d 563
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Robson maintains that despite the lack of ambiguity in the Mexican endorsement, he is entitled to declaratory judgment based upon Darner Motor Sales, , and Gordinier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
- Duran v. Hartford Insurance 755 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
- Duran v. Hartford Insurance 755 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
- Green v. Mid-America Preferred Insurance Co. 751 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Green v. Mid-America Preferred Insurance Co. 751 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987