Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rawlings v. Apodaca, 726 P.2d 565.

327 citing documents.

Twin City Fire Insurance v. Burke 63 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2003
Twin City Fire Insurance v. Burke 63 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2003
Medasys Acquisition Corp. v. SDMS, P.C. 55 P.3d 763 Ariz. 2002
Medasys Acquisition Corp. v. SDMS, P.C. 55 P.3d 763 Ariz. 2002
Beaudry v. Insurance Co. of the West 50 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Beaudry v. Insurance Co. of the West 50 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
-54 , -70 (1986) (citations omitted).
Bike Fashion Corp. v. Kramer 46 P.3d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bike Fashion Corp. v. Kramer 46 P.3d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 13 Arizona “law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract.” , see Enyart v. Transamerica Ins.
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund 38 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2002
Co., , ( , see also Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp., , ).
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
Wells Fargo Bank v. Az Laborers Ariz. 2002
-33- Ariz. 71, ( P.2d 565 (1986)); see also Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp., ).
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Co., Inc., -57, -10 (1992) (demanding clear and convincing evidence); -63 , -79 (1986) (requiring, as a predicate, an “evil hand” being guided by an “evil mind” which “either consciously sought to damage the [victim] or acted intentionally, knowing that its conduct was likely to cause unjustified, significant damage”).
S Development Co. v. Pima Capital Management Co. 31 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
S Development Co. v. Pima Capital Management Co. 31 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 11 We begin by recognizing that Arizona law “implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract” so that “neither party will act to impair the right of the other to receive the benefits which flow from their agreement or contractual relationship.”
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Manterola v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 30 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Bernhart v. Industrial Commission 26 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Bernhart v. Industrial Commission 26 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 17 In tort law, as in workers’ compensation law, the concept of wilfulness has evolved to connote “conscious and deliberate disregard.” , (to support punitive damages requires “such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that the conduct may be called wilful or wanton,” and such conduct may be inferred when the actor “was ‘aware of and consciously disregarded] a substantial and unjustifiable risk
Saucedo Ex Rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army 24 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Rowland v. Great States Insurance 20 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Saucedo Ex Rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army 24 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Co., -57 , -10 (1992), , and Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins.
Rowland v. Great States Insurance 20 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Leal v. Allstate Insurance 17 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Leal v. Allstate Insurance 17 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶21 We imply “a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract.” , (emphasis added).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 13 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2000
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 13 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2000
196 Ariz. at 237 ¶¶ 19-20, 995 P.2d at 279 ¶¶ 19-20 ( , ).
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In order for a plaintiff to recover punitive damages, it is usually not enough to show that the defendant committed a tort; the plaintiff ordinarily must show “something more.” , (citation omitted).
Haisch v. Allstate Insurance 5 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Haisch v. Allstate Insurance 5 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Co., , , Enyart v. Transamerica Ins.
Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 995 P.2d 276 Ariz. 2000
Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 995 P.2d 276 Ariz. 2000
An insurance contract is not an ordinary commercial bargain; “implicit in the contract and the relationship is the insurer’s obligation to play fairly with its insured.”
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 977 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 977 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Tobel v. Travelers Insurance 988 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Tobel v. Travelers Insurance 988 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
for the proposition that “the covenant of good faith and fair dealing can be breached even though the company performs its express covenants under the insurance contract.” ¶ 45 A bad faith claim cannot exist for claims that are “fairly debatable.” See Noble v. National Amer.
Inter-Tel, Inc. v. Bank of America 985 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Inter-Tel, Inc. v. Bank of America 985 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-54 , -70 (1986) (a party must refrain from any action that would impair benefits other party had right to expect from contract or relationship).
Enyart v. Transamerica Insurance 985 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Enyart v. Transamerica Insurance 985 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Johnson International, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 967 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Johnson International, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 967 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In Re William G. 963 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re William G. 963 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
To obtain punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant’s wrongful conduct was guided by evil motives; that is, a "plaintiff must prove that defendant's evil hand was guided by an evil mind.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by