Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Reserve Insurance Company v. Staats, 453 P.2d 239.

49 citing documents.

Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(we cannot "find uninsured motorist coverage where it is neither provided in the policy under consideration nor demanded by statute”).
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Young 985 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Young 985 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
American States Insurance v. C & G Contracting, Inc. 924 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
American States Insurance v. C & G Contracting, Inc. 924 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(stranger to the policy has no UM coverage when occupying a non-covered auto).
Alcala v. Mid-Century Insurance 828 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Alcala v. Mid-Century Insurance 828 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Abbott v. Meacock 746 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Abbott v. Meacock 746 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Spain v. Valley Forge Insurance 731 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1987
Spain v. Valley Forge Insurance 731 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1987
Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 697 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1985
Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 697 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1985
Evenchik v. State Farm Insurance 679 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
EVENCHIC v. State Farm Ins. Co. 679 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
EVENCHIC v. State Farm Ins. Co. 679 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Evenchik v. State Farm Insurance 679 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Gilbreath v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 685 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Gilbreath v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 685 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Phillips v. Flowing Wells Unified School District No. 8 669 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Phillips v. Flowing Wells Unified School District No. 8 669 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Anderson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 652 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1982
Mission Insurance v. Nethers 581 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Mission Insurance v. Nethers 581 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Pawelczyk v. Allied Life Insurance 583 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Pawelczyk v. Allied Life Insurance 583 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
St. Charles v. Allstate Insurance 565 P.2d 913 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
St. Charles v. Allstate Insurance 565 P.2d 913 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Allstate also argues that its policy must be read as a whole, , and thus the definition in Section I must be applied in all other sections.
Balestrieri v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Insurance 540 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1975
Balestrieri v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Insurance 540 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1975
Although our courts have said that the Arizona uninsured motorist statute is to be liberally construed in accordance with its remedial purposes, P.2d 239 (.1969), it also has been noted that *163 “uninsured” within this section means literally “not insured.” Harsha v. Fidelity General Insurance Co., 11 Ariz.App.
Shaffer v. Southern Union Gas Co., Inc. 539 P.2d 902 Ariz. 1975
Shaffer v. Southern Union Gas Co., Inc. 539 P.2d 902 Ariz. 1975
We are not at liberty, however, to find uninsured motorist coverage where it is neither provided in the policy under consideration nor demanded by statute.”
Williams v. Williams 531 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Williams v. Williams 531 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Home Insurance Company v. Lomax 498 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Home Insurance Company v. Lomax 498 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Heard v. Farmers Insurance Exchange Company 496 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Heard v. Farmers Insurance Exchange Company 496 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Co., 6 Ariz.App.
Pesqueria v. Factory Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of America 493 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Pesqueria v. FACTORY MUT. LIAB. INS. CO. OF AMER. 493 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Pesqueria v. FACTORY MUT. LIAB. INS. CO. OF AMER. 493 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
: "Motor vehicle liability policies issuable in Arizona under A.R.S § 28-1170, as amended, of the Safety Responsibility Act fall into two general categories: an `owner's policy' and an `operator's policy.'
Pesqueria v. Factory Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of America 493 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
: “Motor vehicle liability policies issuable in Arizona under A.R.S § 28-1170, as amended, of the Safety Responsibility Act fall into two general categories: an ‘owner’s policy’ and an ‘operator’s policy.’ See Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company, 6 Ariz.App.
Harsha v. Fidelity General Insurance Company 465 P.2d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Harsha v. Fidelity General Insurance Company 465 P.2d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Koenig v. Mission Insurance 464 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Koenig v. Mission Insurance 464 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
470 , , ] and hold that this public policy will not permit Mission to deny that Miss Koenig’s policy contained the statutorily required uninsured motorist coverage where they have failed to clearly show that Miss Koenig understood she had a valid rejection in existence at the time the contract was complet
Civil Service Employees Insurance Co. v. Roberts 460 P.2d 48 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Civil Service Employees Insurance Co. v. Roberts 460 P.2d 48 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
), and Connolly v. Great Basin Ins.