Cited by

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

127 citing documents.

Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Clayton 440 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1968
we said: “Where the basis upon which this act has been declared constitutional is, ‘preventing financial hardship and possible reliance upon the welfare agencies,’ we cannot constitutionally allow artful distinctions between ‘
Canal Insurance v. State Farm Insurance Companies 436 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Canal Insurance v. State Farm Insurance Companies 436 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
The appellant’s argument that the driver limitation endorsement contained in the Canal policy, denying coverage when the insured automobile is driven by anyone other than the owner, is also answered against it in Dairyland Mutual Insurance Company v. Andersen, supra
Purcell v. Frazer 435 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Purcell v. Frazer 435 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Dairyland Mutual Insurance Company v. Andersen 433 P.2d 963 Ariz. 1967
Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Dairyland Mutual Insurance 433 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1967
UNIVERSAL UNDER. INS. CO. v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co. 433 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1967
UNIVERSAL UNDER. INS. CO. v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co. 433 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1967
we held that the omnibus clause, A.R.S.
Dairyland Mutual Insurance Company v. Andersen 433 P.2d 963 Ariz. 1967
Dairyland replies that Great Basin’s , , and this is correct.
Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Dairyland Mutual Insurance 433 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1967
we held that the omnibus clause, A.R.S.
Maryland Casualty Company v. Wilson 433 P.2d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Maryland Casualty Company v. Wilson 433 P.2d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company 431 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company 431 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Sandoval v. Chenoweth 428 P.2d 98 Ariz. 1967
Sandoval v. Chenoweth 428 P.2d 98 Ariz. 1967
wherein we held in a unanimous opinion that the “omnibus clause” is a part of every motor vehicle liability policy, by whatever name it may be called.
UNIVERSAL UNDER. INS. CO. v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co. 425 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
UNIVERSAL UNDER. INS. CO. v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co. 425 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Exchange, , does apply and we see no reason why it should not apply to this situation.
Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Dairyland Mutual Insurance 425 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Dairyland Mutual Insurance 425 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Exchange, , does apply and we see no reason why it should not apply to this situation.
Carpenter v. Superior Court 422 P.2d 129 Ariz. 1966
Carpenter v. Superior Court 422 P.2d 129 Ariz. 1966
Petitioners also urge that the judgment of the lower court should be reversed for the reason that the facts in the instant case are controlled by- -
Sandoval v. Chenoweth 410 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Sandoval v. Chenoweth 410 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Exch., , should not be extended to include the situation in the case at bar.
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Hamman Wholesale Lumber & Supply Co. 390 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1964
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Hamman Wholesale Lumber & Supply Co. 390 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1964