Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. O'Brien, 535 P.2d 46.

46 citing documents.

Mac Properties v. Dd Dunlap Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Mac Properties v. Dd Dunlap Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Co. v. O’Brien, -22 (1975) (decided before enactment of A.R.S.
Messina v. MIDWAY CHEVROLET CO. 209 P.3d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Messina v. MIDWAY CHEVROLET CO. 209 P.3d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Keggi v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance 13 P.3d 785 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Keggi v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance 13 P.3d 785 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Schwab Sales, Inc. v. GN Const. Co., Inc. 992 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Schwab Sales, Inc. v. GN Const. Co., Inc. 992 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Maricopa County 878 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Maricopa County 878 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Chavarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 798 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Chavarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 798 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Salaz v. City of Tucson 756 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Salaz v. City of Tucson 756 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
United States Fidelity & , State Farm Mutual Automo *253 bile Insurance Co. v. O’Brien
Porter v. Continental Casualty Co. 753 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Porter v. Continental Casualty Co. 753 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
He Porter’s final contention is that since “dependents” is not defined either in the master policy or in the Social Security Act, the word is ambiguous and must be construed against Continental pursuant to Sparks, supra; , and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. O’Brien
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
Co. v. O’Brien, , in support of their contention that the policy is ambiguous in that the word “premium” as used in the cancellation provision in paragraph 2(a)(1) could refer not only to premiums paid during the term of the insurance, but could also reasonably be read to include renewal premiums.
Canadian Indemnity Co. v. Heflin 727 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Canadian Indemnity Co. v. Heflin 727 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Spain v. Valley Forge Insurance 731 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Spain v. Valley Forge Insurance 731 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company v. O’Brien
Boltz & Odegaard v. Hohn 714 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Boltz & Odegaard v. Hohn 714 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
Mid-Century Insurance v. Samaniego 681 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Mid-Century Insurance v. Samaniego 681 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Lake Havasu Resort v. COMMERCIAL LOAN INS. 678 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Lake Havasu Resort v. COMMERCIAL LOAN INS. 678 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1982
Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1982
State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. O’Brien
Rodemich v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 637 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Rodemich v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 637 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Evans 636 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Evans 636 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. O’Brien, , Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company, 6 Ariz.App.
Spanier v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 623 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Spanier v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 623 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Paynter 593 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Paynter 593 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. O’Brien
Tomeoka v. Mid-Century Insurance 577 P.2d 245 Ariz. 1978
Tomeoka v. Mid-Century Insurance 577 P.2d 245 Ariz. 1978
Co. v. O’Brien, , Di Prospero v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 30 Conn.Sup.
Bergthold v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania 564 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Bergthold v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania 564 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
See, St,ate Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. O’Brien
Harbor Insurance v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 559 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Harbor Insurance v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 559 P.2d 178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
While it is true that ambiguities will be construed against the insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. O’Brien, , when a policy’s meaning and intent are clear, it is not the prerogative of the courts to create ambiguities where none exist or to rewrite the contract in attempting to avoid harsh results.