Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sandoval v. Chenoweth, 428 P.2d 98.

102 citing documents.

Advanced Property Tax v. Jorge Othon and Spouse Ariz. 2023
Advanced Property Tax v. Jorge Othon and Spouse Ariz. 2023
not only creates a judgment debt in favor of the injured party, but at the same time it creates a debt under the insurance contract between the judgment debtor and his insurer,” and thus “the insurer should have a right to defend against the default judgment.” see also Camacho, 104 Ariz. at 558 (stating the insurance company’s “remedy is to mo[v]e to have the default judgment set aside” (quoting Sandoval, 102 Ariz. at 246)).
Jacob Benson v. Casa De Capri Ent Ariz. 2022
Jacob Benson v. Casa De Capri Ent Ariz. 2022
5 BENSON, et al. v. CASA DE CAPRI ENTERS., (“It seems to be settled that after recovering a judgment against an insured under a liability policy, the injured third person may collect such judgment by instituting garnishment proceedings against the liability insurer.”); see also Kepner v. W. Fire Ins.
Maricopa County v. Barfield 75 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Maricopa County v. Barfield 75 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
("It seems to be settled that after recovering a judgment against an insured under a liability policy, the injured third person may collect such judgment by instituting garnishment proceedings against the liability insurer.").
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(recognizing that rendition of *436 judgment against insured creates both judgment debt in favor of injured party and debt under insurance contract between judgment debtor and insurer that can be garnished by injured party).
Keggi v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance 13 P.3d 785 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Keggi v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance 13 P.3d 785 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Keggi also argues that Arizona law allows a plaintiff to satisfy a judgment against an insured defendant by proceeding against the defendant's insurer
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
at 274, but felt “bound to give it the meaning which the Supreme Court of Arizona [said] it has”
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
Transportation Insuarnce v. Bruining 921 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1996
Transportation Insuarnce v. Bruining 921 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1996
at 218 , 550 P.2d at 89 ( , ).
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
Jenkins v. Mayflower Ins.
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
Falcon v. Beverly Hills Mortgage Corp. 802 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Falcon v. Beverly Hills Mortgage Corp. 802 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 623 Ariz. 1988
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 623 Ariz. 1988
According to the Holts, this defense was untenable, , (insurance coverage could not be denied based on noncompliance with a cooperation clause).
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
This 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 o
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
precludes the insurer from defending against the creditor on grounds that the insured breached his duty to cooperate with the insurer by defaulting in the underlying lawsuit.
Beal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 729 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Beal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 729 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
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.
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc. 666 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1983
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc. 666 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1983
Mosley v. Trans Rent-A-Car, Inc. 650 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Mosley v. Trans Rent-A-Car, Inc. 650 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Union Oil Co. of California v. Hudson Oil Co. 640 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1982
Union Oil Co. of California v. Hudson Oil Co. 640 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1982
Koven v. Saberdyne Systems, Inc.
Kellner v. Lewis 636 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Kellner v. Lewis 636 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Mayhew v. McDougall, 16 Ariz.App.
East v. Hedges 608 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Explained East v. Hedges 608 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Manny v. Estate of Anderson 574 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Manny v. Estate of Anderson 574 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Globe Indemnity Co. v. Blomfield 562 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Globe Indemnity Co. v. Blomfield 562 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
553 , vacated on other grounds