Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lindus v. Northern Insurance Company of New York, 438 P.2d 311.

44 citing documents.

Penn-America Insurance v. Sanchez 202 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Penn-America Insurance v. Sanchez 202 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co. of N.Y., , (indicating that absent actual prejudice to the insurer, an insured’s delayed notice to the insurer will not bar the insured’s claim); Salerno v. Atl.
Nangle v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 73 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Nangle v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 73 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Similarly, , held that the insured’s failure to give the timely notice of the loss required by the policy would not defeat the claim because the insurer failed to show that it was prejudiced by the insured’s delay.
Salerno v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance 6 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Salerno v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance 6 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Co., , (homeowner’s and automobile policies); Liberty Mut.
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. Mandile 963 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. Mandile 963 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Instead, , wherein the court held that an insured’s failure to give notice does not relieve an insurer of its contractual liability when an insured fails to give notice unless the insurer can demonstrate prejudice due to the delay.
Thoracic Cardiovascular Associates, Ltd. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 891 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Thoracic Cardiovascular Associates, Ltd. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 891 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
74 , , vacated, , ; Rowe v. National Sec.
State v. Lucas 799 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lucas 799 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sletten v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 780 P.2d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Sletten v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 780 P.2d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Andersen 763 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1988
Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Andersen 763 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1988
Stewart v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 753 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Stewart v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 753 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Andersen 763 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Andersen 763 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Co., , the court held that an insurance company could not prevail on a coverage issue based on an insured’s delay in giving it notice of a claim, even where notice was an express condition precedent to coverage, where the insurer failed to prove actual prejudice due to the delay.
Northern Arizona Properties v. Pinetop Properties Group 725 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Northern Arizona Properties v. Pinetop Properties Group 725 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
our Supreme Court, interpreting an insurance policy clause covering “All premises where the Named Insured ...
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Powercraft Homes, Inc. 685 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Powercraft Homes, Inc. 685 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
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
Zuckerman v. Transamerica Insurance 650 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1982
Zuckerman v. Transamerica Insurance 650 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1982
(dealing with a “homeowners” liability policy).
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
942 (D.Ariz.1965); , , Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Company v. Pace, 8 Ariz.App.
Maryland Casualty Company v. Clements 487 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Maryland Casualty Company v. Clements 487 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
the Arizona Supreme Court extended the Watson rule, so that now it covers situations involving policies with specific penalty provisions.
State Farm Mutual Insurance v. Superior Court 485 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State Farm Mutual Insurance v. Superior Court 485 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America 461 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Wells-Stewart Construction Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America 461 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In support of its defense of waiver
Camacho v. Gardner 456 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1969
Camacho v. Gardner 456 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1969
Tucson Gas & Electric Company v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Tucson Gas & Electric Company v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
and see Meredith v. Fair, 306 F.2d 374 (5th Cir. 1962).
Northern Insurance v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1969
Northern Insurance v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1969
Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Co. v. Pace 445 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Co. v. Pace 445 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968