Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Carpenter v. Superior Court, 422 P.2d 129.

47 citing documents.

DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Co., , (involving assignment of claims under insurance policy); Stephens v. Textron, Inc., , (involving assignment of worker’s compensation claim); , (involving assignment of the rights of a judgment-creditor of an insured).
K.B. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 941 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
K.B. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 941 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(rights of insured’s judgment creditor against insurer are no greater than the insured’s, “in whose shoes he stands”).
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue 936 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue 936 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 875 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 875 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
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
Sandoval, , ; , Jenkins v. Mayflower Ins.
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 623 Ariz. 1988
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 623 Ariz. 1988
(“there is a duty to exercise reasonable diligence to secure the assistance of the insured, including a request for such assistance and reasonable efforts in attempting to locate him”).
Stufflebeam v. Canadian Indemnity Co. 754 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Stufflebeam v. Canadian Indemnity Co. 754 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
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 order.
Hagen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance 675 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Hagen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance 675 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Our analysis in this regard is consistent with the Arizona Supreme Court’s
Parsons v. Continental National American Group 535 P.2d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Parsons v. Continental National American Group 535 P.2d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Comunale, supra.” 19 Ariz.App.
State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. CIVIL SERV. EMP. INS. 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Civil Service Employees Insurance 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. CIVIL SERV. EMP. INS. 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Civil Service Employees Insurance 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
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
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 . , .
Johnson v. Collins 464 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Johnson v. Collins 464 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Trimmer v. Ludtke 462 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1969
Trimmer v. Ludtke 462 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1969
American National Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. McNally 451 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1969
American National Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. McNally 451 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1969
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
make it clear that our Supreme Court “ * * * regards the claims of automobile accident victims to funds created by insurance as interests of the highest protectible order.” Geyer v. Reserve Insurance Company, 8 Ariz.App.
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
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance Company 442 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1968
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance Company 442 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1968
But, , ; in quoting from a previous case, , : “ * * * if the papers of the moving party fail to show that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party need not file an opposing affidavit.
Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima 439 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1968
Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima 439 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1968
Lindus v. Northern Insurance Company of New York 438 P.2d 311 Ariz. 1968
Lindus v. Northern Insurance Company of New York 438 P.2d 311 Ariz. 1968
the burden is on the insurer to either show that an additional insured knew of the policy and its conditions, or that they made a reasonable effort to apprise the insured of the extent and conditions of the policy.
Sandoval v. Chenoweth 428 P.2d 98 Ariz. 1967
Elerick v. Rocklin 425 P.2d 103 Ariz. 1967
Elerick v. Rocklin 425 P.2d 103 Ariz. 1967