Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jenkins v. Mayflower Insurance Exchange, 380 P.2d 145.

127 citing documents.

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
Exchange, , Principal Casualty Ins.
Wilshire Insurance v. Home Insurance 880 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Wilshire Insurance v. Home Insurance 880 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
insert an obligatory omnibus clause into every automobile liability policy.
Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford 876 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford 876 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Ormsbee v. Allstate Insurance 859 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1993
Ormsbee v. Allstate Insurance 859 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1993
we refused to allow mere labels used in the insurance trade to interfere with legislative intent.
Principal Casualty Insurance v. Progressive Casualty Insurance 838 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Principal Casualty Insurance v. Progressive Casualty Insurance 838 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Gilmore 812 P.2d 977 Ariz. 1991
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Gilmore 812 P.2d 977 Ariz. 1991
Exch., , Geyer v. Reserve Ins.
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
Exch., , (statutory omnibus clause is part of every motor vehicle liability policy); see also Laird v. Nationwide Ins.
Higgins v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 760 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Higgins v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 760 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
is court held that the passenger was entitled to recover under both provisions even though this resulted in recovery beyond the maximum liability provided for in the policy, stating: Our Supreme Court has made it clear in its Sandoval [v. Chenoweth, , ], Carpenter [v. Superior Court, , ], , ] decisions, supra, that it regards the claims of automobile accident victims to funds created by insurance as interests of the highest protectible order.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 717 P.2d 858 Ariz. 1986
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 717 P.2d 858 Ariz. 1986
Gilbreath v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 685 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1984
Cassel v. Schacht 683 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1984
Cassel v. Schacht 683 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1984
Gilbreath v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 685 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1984
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
Geyer v. Reserve Insurance Company, 8 Ariz.App.
Anderson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 652 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1982
Highlands Insurance v. Fischer 595 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Highlands Insurance v. Fischer 595 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Mission Insurance v. Aid Insurance Services 585 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1978
Mission Insurance v. Aid Insurance Services 585 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1978
Schwab v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 558 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Schwab v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 558 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Arceneaux v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 550 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1976
Arceneaux v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 550 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1976
we pointed out the legislative purpose of providing recovery for injured third parties.
Gomez v. Great American Insurance 548 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Gomez v. Great American Insurance 548 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
James v. Aetna Life & Casualty 546 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
James v. Aetna Life & Casualty 546 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
we believe the “minor deviation” rule best advances the public policy of the state.
Arceneaux v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 546 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Arceneaux v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 546 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Exchange, , the Supreme Court held that the omnibus clause *128 is a part of every motor vehicle liability policy.
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
§ 28-1170(B) (2), which is a part of every insurance policy, , Shaffer was an “insured” and was covered by the policy.
Stevens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 519 P.2d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Stevens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 519 P.2d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Exchange, , and subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Transport Indemnity Co. 505 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1973
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Transport Indemnity Co. 505 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1973
we made it clear that restrictions in the omnibus clause were against the public policy of this state and would be considered void.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Read Mullan Motor Co. 503 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1972
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Read Mullan Motor Co. 503 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1972
State Farm’s exclusion was completely void, so that Hartford’s excess clause relieved it of all liability.
Price v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY 494 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by