Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford, 876 P.2d 1203.

26 citing documents.

Date Street Capital, LLC v. Clearcover Insurance Company ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Date Street Capital, LLC v. Clearcover Insurance Company ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
(Vehicle Insurance and Financial Responsibility Act “mandates coverage following an accident with injuries or damage notwithstanding the insurer’s inability to discover fraudulent representations made in the insurance application”); -45 (A
McKee v. State 388 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
McKee v. State 388 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that courts will construe conflicting statutes in harmony when possible.”).
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
see also Alcala v. Mid-Century Ins.
Wilshire Insurance v. S.A. 227 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Wilshire Insurance v. S.A. 227 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(more specific statute controls over conflicting general statute); United Cal.
Clark v. Campbell 193 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Clark v. Campbell 193 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Welch-Doden v. Roberts 42 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Welch-Doden v. Roberts 42 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
The primary purpose “is to determine and give effect to the legislative intent behind the statute, considering among other things the context of the statute, the language used and the spirit and purpose of the law.”
Drucker v. Greater Phoenix Transportation Co. 3 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Drucker v. Greater Phoenix Transportation Co. 3 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
The purpose of the financial responsibility laws is “the protection of the travelling public from financial hardship resulting from the operation of motor vehicles by financially irresponsible persons.”
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
Furthermore, Young’s , in support of this argument is misplaced.
Napier v. Bertram 954 P.2d 1389 Ariz. 1998
Napier v. Bertram 954 P.2d 1389 Ariz. 1998
-72 , -07 (App.1994) (citations omitted).
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
McCandless v. United Southern Assurance Co. 953 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
McCandless v. United Southern Assurance Co. 953 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-72 , -07 (App.1994) (The primary purpose of the Act “is the protection of the travelling public from financial hardship resulting from the operation of motor vehicles by financially irresponsible persons”).
Ogden v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 933 P.2d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Ogden v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 933 P.2d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Section 28-1170(F)(l) “broadly mandates that an insurer’s obligation to provide coverage ‘shall become absolute’ whenever injury occurs.”