Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite New York Underwriters Insurance v. Superior Court, 456 P.2d 914.

36 citing documents.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Falness 872 P.2d 1233 Ariz. 1994
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Falness 872 P.2d 1233 Ariz. 1994
that the exclusion “as limited to the named insured himself is not contradictory to the provisions of A.R.S.
Pruett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 857 P.2d 1301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Pruett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 857 P.2d 1301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Principal Casualty Insurance v. Progressive Casualty Insurance 838 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Principal Casualty Insurance v. Progressive Casualty Insurance 838 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
*548 (Omnibus coverage is intended for the protection of accident victims other than the named insured; the statutory purpose is not violated by the named insured’s agreement to exclude coverage for his own injury-)- In this case, Progressive argues that it will impair, not advance, pub
Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance 682 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1984
Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance 682 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1984
Cassel v. Schacht 683 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Cassel v. Schacht 683 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
See , (household exclusion); , (upheld exclusion of insured’s own personal injuries); Schwab v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 27 Ariz.App.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gibbs 678 P.2d 459 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Gibbs 678 P.2d 459 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gibbs 678 P.2d 459 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
it has been undisputed that the owner of an automobile may contract with his insurance carrier to exclude insurance coverage for bodily injury to himself.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Gibbs 678 P.2d 459 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
it has been undisputed that the owner of an automobile may contract with his insurance carrier to exclude insurance coverage for bodily injury to himself.
Unigard Mutual Insurance v. Martin 654 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Unigard Mutual Insurance v. Martin 654 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Schwab v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 558 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Schwab v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 558 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
the Arizona Supreme Court found that the Arizona Financial Responsibility Act does not “restrict the privilege of an individual to contract with his insurance carrier to exclude his own personal recovery under the policy terms in the event of his own injury.” 104 Ariz. at 545 , 456 P.2d at 915 .
Farmers Insurance v. Norden 543 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Farmers Insurance v. Norden 543 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
and Stevens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 21 Ariz.App.
Stevens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 519 P.2d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Stevens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 519 P.2d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Transport Indemnity Co. 505 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1973
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Transport Indemnity Co. 505 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1973
Farmers Insurance Group v. Home Indemnity Co. 493 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1972
Farmers Insurance Group v. Home Indemnity Co. 493 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1972
the holding was that an insured could contract to restrict coverage so as to exclude his own personal injuries or death, inferring without expressly stating that there was no social objective which compelled a person to protect himself against financial hardship.
Owens v. Allied Mutual Insurance Company 487 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Owens v. Allied Mutual Insurance Company 487 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Chiate 476 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Chiate 476 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Limon v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 465 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Limon v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 465 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
the only Arizona decision which we have found involving the question of whether a general policy provision excluding coverage for injuries to a certain individual conflicts with the statutory omnibus provisions, the court was asked to decide whether or not a policy provision excluding coverage f
Harsha v. Fidelity General Insurance Company 465 P.2d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Harsha v. Fidelity General Insurance Company 465 P.2d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
and cases cited therein.
Ny Underwriters v. Sup. Ct. in & for Cty of Maricopa 456 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1969
Ny Underwriters v. Sup. Ct. in & for Cty of Maricopa 456 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1969
NEW YORK UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; the Hartford Insurance Group; and Citizens Insurance Company of New Jersey, Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Arizona IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF MARICOPA; and the Honorable William Gooding, a judge thereof; and CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INSURA

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by