DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Aire-Flo Products, Inc., 385 P.2d 211.

15 citing documents.

  • Tanner Companies v. Insurance Marketing Services, Inc. 743 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Gilbreath v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 685 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    360 , we quoted the Arizona Supreme Court’s statement regarding the rules of construction applicable to an insurance contract as follows: “In the absence of a statutory provision which will be read into each policy issued thereunder and cannot be contracted away by either party, , the principles to be applied in construing an insurance policy have been stated by this Court, in a series of decisions and may be summarized as follows: The cardinal principle pertaining to the construction and interp
  • Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 659 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • B. J. Cecil Trucking, Inc. v. Tiffany Construction Co. 597 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    ****** That the act relating to contractor’s bonds is in pari materia with the Mechanic’s , , where we said: ‘ * * * The clear intent of the legislature in enacting § 32-1152, supra, was to make sure that an election by a materialman to sue under A.R.S.
  • Heard v. Farmers Insurance Exchange Company 496 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    as follows: “In the absence of a statutory provision which will be read into each policy issued thereunder and cannot be contracted away by either party, , the principles to be applied in construing an insurance policy have been stated by this Court in a series of decisions and may be summarized as follows: The cardinal principle pertaining to the construction and interpretation of insurance contracts is that the intention of the parties should control.
  • Cagle v. Home Insurance Co. 483 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    The Supreme Court has concisely set out the rules of construction applicable to an insurance contract as follows: “In the absence of a statutory provision which will be read into each policy issued thereunder and cannot be contracted away by either party, , the principles to be applied in construing an insurance policy have been stated by this Court, in a series of decisions and may be summarized as follows: The cardinal principle pertaining to the construction and interpretation of insurance co
  • Arizona Gunite Builders, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co. 459 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1969
    That the act relating to contractor’s bonds is in pari materia with the Mechanics’ , , where we said: “ * * * The clear intent of the legislature in enacting § 32-1152, supra, was to make sure that an election by a materialman to sue under A.R.S.
  • Costanzo v. Stewart 453 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    134 , (forbearance of exercising lien for promise to pay held a valid agreement on doctrine promissory estoppel between landowner and materialmen); , , (1963) (materialman can sue on contractor’s license bond and on lien for excess); , (materialman can sue on contractor’s completion bond).
  • Dairyland Mutual Insurance Company v. Andersen 433 P.2d 963 Ariz. 1967
    “In the absence of a statutory provision which will be read into each policy issued thereunder and cannot be contracted away by either party, , the principles to be applied in construing an insurance policy have been stated by this Court in a series of decisions and may be summarized as follows : The cardinal principle pertaining to the construction and interpretation of insurance contracts is that the intention of the parties should control.
  • D. M. A. F. B. Federal Credit Union v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance 396 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1964
    In the absence of a statutory provision which will be read into each policy issued thereunder and cannot be contracted away by either party, , the principles to be applied in construing an insurance policy have been stated by this Court in a series of decisions and may be summarized as follows: The cardinal principle pertaining to the construction and interpretation of insurance contracts is that the intention of the parties should control.
  • Dmafb Fed. Cr. U. v. Employers Mut. L. Ins. 396 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1964
    In the absence of a statutory provision which will be read into each policy issued thereunder and cannot be contracted away by either party, , the principles to be applied in construing an insurance policy have been stated by this Court in a series of decisions and may be summarized as follows: The cardinal principle pertaining to the construction and interpretation of insurance contracts is that the intention of the parties should control.
  • ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. OF NY v. Business Factors, Inc. 393 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1964
  • United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Fields Roofing Co. 385 P.2d 226 Ariz. 1963
    Our decision in this case is controlled by United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Hirsch, Ariz., .
  • United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hirsch 385 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1963
    Our decision in this case is controlled by United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Hirsch, Ariz., .
  • United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Ray Lumber Co. 385 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1963
    Our decision in this case is controlled by United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Hirsch, Ariz., .