Cited by

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

127 citing documents.

Price v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY 494 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
§ 28-1170 (as amended 1961)
Balboa Insurance v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 496 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Balboa Insurance v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 496 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
which have interpreted automobile liability insurance policies in a manner most favorable to the insured.
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
held that in Arizona all automobile liability policies must comply with the Arizona Financial Responsibility Act.
Pesqueria v. Factory Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of America 493 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
held that in Arizona all automobile liability policies must comply with the Arizona Financial Responsibility Act.
Farmers Insurance Group v. Home Indemnity Co. 493 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1972
Farmers Insurance Group v. Home Indemnity Co. 493 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1972
Universal Underwriters Insurance v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters 493 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1972
Universal Under. Ins. Co. v. State Auto. & Cas. Under. 493 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1972
Universal Under. Ins. Co. v. State Auto. & Cas. Under. 493 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1972
Jenkins v. Mayflower *115 Insurance Exchange
Universal Underwriters Insurance v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters 493 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1972
This omnibus clause is a part of every policy, regardless of whether the policy expressly so states Jenkins v. Mayflower *115 Insurance Exchange
Johnson v. Franco 487 P.2d 406 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Johnson v. Franco 487 P.2d 406 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
National Union Fire Insurance v. Truck Insurance Exchange 486 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1971
National Union Fire Insurance v. Truck Insurance Exchange 486 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1971
Exchange, , we held that the omnibus clause is a part of every motor vehicle liability policy.
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance 485 P.2d 552 Ariz. 1971
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance 485 P.2d 552 Ariz. 1971
Exchange, , we held that the omnibus clause is a part of every motor vehicle liability policy.
Cagle v. Home Insurance Co. 483 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Cagle v. Home Insurance Co. 483 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
plaintiffs contend that the provisions of several statutes must be read into the insurance contract, and that their effect will be to .
Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Allstate Insurance 483 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Allstate Insurance 483 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
The Supreme Court in the cited case made reference to the mandatory coverage which the customer’s policy granted the garage employee as a , and upheld the right of the garage insurer to limit its exposure by means of an excess clause on the basis of fundamental principles of contract law set forth in both the cited case and in the simultaneously rendered decision in Dairyland Mutual Ins.
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance 474 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance 474 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
National Union Fire Insurance v. Truck Insurance Exchange 479 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
National Union Fire Insurance v. Truck Insurance Exchange 479 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
This argument is supplemented by National Union with a , made the omnibus insured clause of the Safety Responsibility Act a part of every automobile policy.
Transportation Insurance Company v. Wade 475 P.2d 253 Ariz. 1970
Transportation Insurance Company v. Wade 475 P.2d 253 Ariz. 1970
The appellee places great emphasis on the public policy relating to liability insurance as enumerated by decision of this court, , ; , , , , in support .of his position that such policy is to provide as much insurance protection as possible, and cites Geyer v. Reserve Insurance Company, 8 Ariz.App.
Porter v. Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Co. 467 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Porter v. Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Co. 467 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
at 467 , 447 P.2d at 559
Limon v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 465 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Limon v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 465 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Dairyland Mutual Insurance Co. v. Andersen, supra
Transportation Insurance Company v. Wade 461 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Transportation Insurance Company v. Wade 461 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Arizona’s public policy on the subject is . , .
New York Underwriters Insurance v. Superior Court 456 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1969
Ny Underwriters v. Sup. Ct. in & for Cty of Maricopa 456 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1969
New York Underwriters Insurance v. Superior Court 456 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1969
*545 The Civil Service policy provides that the “policy does not apply to bodily injury to the insured or any member of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured.” Petitioners assert that the exclusion is contrary to the statutory Omnibus Clause, , to be a part of every motor vehicle liability policy.
Ny Underwriters v. Sup. Ct. in & for Cty of Maricopa 456 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1969
Petitioners assert that the exclusion is contrary to the statutory Omnibus Clause, , to be a part of every motor vehicle liability policy.
Camacho v. Gardner 456 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1969
Camacho v. Gardner 456 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1969
we held that “an omnibus clause is a part of every motor vehicle liability policy, by whatever name it may be called.” , , in discussing the failure of the insured to notify the insurer of the *558 filing of a suit against the insured as required by
Caballero v. Farmers Insurance Group 455 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Caballero v. Farmers Insurance Group 455 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
To support this contention, , , Geyer v. Reserve Insurance Company, 8 Ariz.App.
National Union Insurance v. Chatterton 448 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
National Union Insurance v. Chatterton 448 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Geyer v. Reserve Insurance Company 447 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Geyer v. Reserve Insurance Company 447 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Appellant relies upon decisions construing a similar statute from the State of *466 Florida, and the public policy of Arizona
Brenner v. Aetna Insurance Company 445 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Brenner v. Aetna Insurance Company 445 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In view of our Financial Responsibility Act 13 , and similar cases, an automobile insurer would have no such power.
Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Clayton 440 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1968

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by