Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Hirsch, 385 P.2d 211.

28 citing documents.

Tanner Companies v. Insurance Marketing Services, Inc. 743 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
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
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
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
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
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 con
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
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
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
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
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 co
D. M. A. F. B. Federal Credit Union v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance 396 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1964
Dmafb Fed. Cr. U. v. Employers Mut. L. Ins. 396 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1964
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 con
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 con
ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. OF NY v. Business Factors, Inc. 393 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1964
ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. OF NY v. Business Factors, Inc. 393 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1964
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Aire-Flo Products, Inc. 385 P.2d 211 Ariz. 1963
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Ray Lumber Co. 385 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1963
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hirsch 385 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1963
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Fields Roofing Co. 385 P.2d 226 Ariz. 1963

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by