Cited by

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

273 citing documents.

ARIZ. PROPERTY & CAS. INS. v. Dailey 751 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Dailey 751 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
ARIZ. PROPERTY & CAS. INS. v. Dailey 751 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Dailey 751 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
In the trial court appellant also raised the doctrine of “reasonable expectations.” See Darner Motor Sales
Haldiman v. Gosnell Development Corp. 748 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Haldiman v. Gosnell Development Corp. 748 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Rocz v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. 743 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Rocz v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. 743 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Co., , compels us to hold the arbitration clauses unenforceable.
Gordinier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 742 P.2d 277 Ariz. 1987
Gordinier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 742 P.2d 277 Ariz. 1987
We granted review to clarify the scope of the doctrine of Darner Motor Sales
Koory v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. 737 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1987
Koory v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. 737 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1987
Paul, (2) whether there are factual issues which preclude summary judgment; and (3) whether the “reasonable expectations” doctrine announced in Darner Motor Sales, , is applicable to this case.
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Oliver 741 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Oliver 741 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
DeTemple v. Southern Insurance 740 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
DeTemple v. Southern Insurance 740 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
for the principle that ambiguities in an insurance policy are to be resolved *86 against the insurer.
Van Sickle v. Farmer's Ins. Co. of Ariz. 738 P.2d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Van Sickle v. Farmer's Ins. Co. of Ariz. 738 P.2d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Continental Bank v. Guaranty Warehouse Corp. 738 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Continental Bank v. Guaranty Warehouse Corp. 738 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
1226 , 59 L.Ed.2d 462 (1979); see also Darner Motor Sales
Heltzel v. Mecham Pontiac 730 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1986
Heltzel v. Mecham Pontiac 730 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1986
Johnson v. Cavan 733 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Johnson v. Cavan 733 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
These arguments parallel the differing view of Williston and Corbin, noted by the Arizona Supreme Court in Darner Motor Sales, , : “The point in dispute is whether the fact that the writing appears on its face to be a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement establishes conclusively that the agreement is completely integrated.” [E.] Farnsworth, [Contracts, § 7.3], at 455.
Dunn v. Progress Industries, Inc. 734 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Dunn v. Progress Industries, Inc. 734 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Gordinier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 742 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Gordinier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 742 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
APPELLANT’S OTHER CONTENTIONS Gordinier contends she is also entitled to coverage under the reasonable expectations doctrine discussed in Darner Motor Sales
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., , and (3) whether under Arizona law the facts that bring a case within a coverage exclusion in an aircraft liability policy must be causally connected to the accident in question before the exclusion may be given effect.
Stika v. Albion 724 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Stika v. Albion 724 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Co., , see generally, Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 212 (1981); 3 Corbin, Contracts § 535, at 19-20 (1960).
United Fence Co. v. Great-West Life Assurance Co. 723 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
United Fence Co. v. Great-West Life Assurance Co. 723 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Co., , concerning standardized forms of agreement and reasonable expectations of coverage; and the propriety of the trial court’s denial of appellant United Fence Company’s (United Fence) motion for rehearing of summary judgment.
Koory v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. 737 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Koory v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. 737 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
1 Additionally, appellant argues that applying the reasonable condition requirement under these circumstances violates the reasonable expectation doctrine and the principles set forth in Darner Motor Sales, , since it was within the reasonable expectation of the insured that losses triggered by wind would be covered by the term “windstorm.” Appellant also argues that it was improper for Western to issue the policy and accept premiums if appellant never could have recovered for any insured event
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Bogart 717 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1986
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Bogart 717 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1986
Nystrom v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance 713 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Nystrom v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance 713 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Co., , would require the trial court to accept Nystrom’s uncontradicted testimony that he reasonably expected his disability policies to pay off if he could no longer work at Farnam for reasons of health.
Heltzel v. Mecham Pontiac 730 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1985
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1985
Darner Motor Sales, , , , are, for instance, cases involving professionals (insurance broker and physicians) sued by their clients or patients.
McCutchin v. SCA Services of Arizona, Inc. 709 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
McCutchin v. SCA Services of Arizona, Inc. 709 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Co., , however, the Supreme Court of Arizona moved away from strict application of the rule.
Mason v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 714 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Mason v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 714 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
where the Supreme Court held that when an expectation has “been induced by the making of a promise”, 140 Ariz. at 390 , 682 P.2d at 395 , the trier of fact may have to resolve questions of fact concerning what the parties did, said and intended, regardless of the written agreement between the pa
Johnson v. University Hospital 712 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Johnson v. University Hospital 712 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Co., , National Housing Industries, Inc. v. E.L.
University Mechanical Contractors of Arizona, Inc. v. Puritan Insurance 723 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985