Cited by

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

273 citing documents.

University Mechanical Contractors of Arizona, Inc. v. Puritan Insurance 723 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
appellee contends that the policy should be construed to afford coverage.
Miller v. Uhrick 706 P.2d 739 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Miller v. Uhrick 706 P.2d 739 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance v. Lewallen 703 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance v. Lewallen 703 P.2d 1232 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
This court is not asked to interpret a policy dispute between insurer and insured, as in Darner Motor Sales, , , Zuckerman v. Transamerica Insurance Company, supra.
United States Fire Insurance v. Gentile 712 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
United States Fire Insurance v. Gentile 712 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
That discussion must, of course
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Bogart 717 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Bogart 717 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
We recognize that our supreme court in Darner Motor Sales, , discussed at length its concerns with blindly applying the principles enunciated in Rodemich and Parks .
Transamerica Insurance Group v. Meere 694 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1984
Transamerica Insurance Group v. Meere 694 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1984
Cecil Lawter Real Estate School, Inc. v. Town & Country Shopping Center Co. 694 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Cecil Lawter Real Estate School, Inc. v. Town & Country Shopping Center Co. 694 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
otiation, prior understandings, subsequent conduct and the like, is taken to determine the parties’ intent with regard to integration of the agreement; once the court is able to decide what constitutes the “agreement,” the evidence may be used to interpret the meaning of the provisions contained in the agreement, (emphasis added) Darner Motor Sales
Nastri v. Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. 690 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Nastri v. Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. 690 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
See Darner Motor Sales, , 682 P.2d *442 388 (1984).
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
The Arizona Supreme Court recently had occasion to apply the contract principle stated in Melson in an opinion involving an insurance contract in Darner Motor Sales
Statewide Ins. Corp. v. Dewar 694 P.2d 1167 Ariz. 1984
Gilbreath v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 685 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1984
Gilbreath v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 685 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1984
Darner Motor Sales v. *95 Universal Underwriters, Inc.
Statewide Ins. Corp. v. Dewar 694 P.2d 1167 Ariz. 1984