Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Transamerica Insurance Group v. Meere, 694 P.2d 181.
- Twin City Fire Insurance v. Doe 788 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
-
Twin City Fire Insurance v. Doe
788 P.2d 121
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
the court held that if the conduct constitutes an intentional tort, and the law does not recognize any privilege for such conduct, then the basic intent to injure will be presumed and the exclusion will apply.
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1989
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1989
- Phoenix Control Systems, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America 778 P.2d 1316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- Phoenix Control Systems, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America 778 P.2d 1316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- Hamman v. County of Maricopa 775 P.2d 1122 Ariz. 1989
- Hamman v. County of Maricopa 775 P.2d 1122 Ariz. 1989
- 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
for the proposition that the issue is not whether the insured’s acts were intended but whether, from the subjective standpoint of the insured, the injury itself was intended.
- Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Andersen 763 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1988
- Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Andersen 763 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1988
- Valles v. Arizona Board of Regents 743 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
- Valles v. Arizona Board of Regents 743 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
- Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Campbell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 745 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
-
Campbell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona
745 P.2d 160
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
: “Of course, a finding of ambiguity is the easy way out since it permits the court to create its own version of the contract and to find, or fail to find, ambiguity in order to justify an almost predetermined result.
- United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Morris 741 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1987
- United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Morris 741 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1987
- Wilcox v. Waldman 744 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Wilcox v. Waldman 744 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Westfield Insurance v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. 739 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Westfield Insurance v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. 739 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- 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
- F.W. Leisure Industries, Inc. v. Cook Paint & Varnish Co. 736 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
- F.W. Leisure Industries, Inc. v. Cook Paint & Varnish Co. 736 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
- Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Helme 735 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1987
- Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Helme 735 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1987
- Hamman v. County of Maricopa 775 P.2d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Hamman v. County of Maricopa 775 P.2d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicapped 721 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicapped 721 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- Fire Insurance Exchange v. Berray 694 P.2d 191 Ariz. 1984
-
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Berray
694 P.2d 191
Ariz. 1984
We have jurisdiction under Ariz.Const., art. 6, § 5(3) and Rule 23, Ariz.R.Civ.App.P., 17A A.R.S.; , to settle a conflict in the decisions of the court of appeals (Rule 23(c)(4)) concerning the scope of the intentional act exclusion.