Cited by

Court held “that the cooperation clause prohibition against settling without the insurer’s consent forbids an insured from settling only claims for which the insurer unconditionally assumes liability under the 6 APOLLO EDUCATION V. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE Opinion of the Court policy.” Id.; (allowing an insured to enter a settlement agreement without breaching the cooperation clause in certain circumstances).

See Goodman, 103 Ariz. at 540 (“A failure to consider the 2 Crowe’s reluctance to rely upon Rule 41 in the proceedings below appears to stem from a which, when taken out of context, could be interpreted to exclude a voluntary motion to dismiss with prejudice from Rule 41.

(recognizing the validity of an agreement in which an insured stipulates to a judgment, assigns his claims against the insurer to the claimant, and, in turn, the claimant agrees not to execute the judgment against the insured personally).

claims, as State Farm did here, the insured and the claimant may enter into a Damron agreement “under which the insured stipulates to a judgment, assigns his rights against the insurer to the claimant, and receives in return a covenant from the claimant not to execute against the insured.” Parking Concepts, ¶ 3 n.1, n.1 (2004); –53, –99 (1969).

¶ 14 , our supreme court held that when an insurer breaches a contract of insurance by failing to defend, the duty of cooperation does not prevent the *566 insured from entering into a settlement with the claimant and assigning his rights under the policy to the claimant.

¶ 14 , our supreme court held that when an insurer breaches the contract of insurance by failing to defend, the duty of cooperation does not prevent the insured from entering into a settlement with the claimant and assigning his rights under the policy to the claimant.

-53 , -99 (Ariz.1969); see also Safeway Ins.

C. Preclusion ¶ 28 Relying on Cunningham v. Goettl Air Conditioning, Inc., , , MT Builders argues its settlement with the Association barred Fisher from disputing the existence and extent of its indemnity liability to MT Builders.

But the insurer clearly was entitled to reserve its rights on coverage while providing a defense in the underlying action, “without thereby waiving its right to raise the question of liability under the terms of the policy at a later date.” see also Morris, 154 Ariz. at 118, 741 P.2d at 251.

P.2d 2 whether attorneys who negotiate a Morris agreement on behalf of a plaintiff in a personal injury action can be subjected to liability to the defendant’s insurer for intentional interference with contractual relations.

An agreement with the same general characteristics entered into when the insurer refuses to defend is referred to as a ‘Damron agreement.’ " Parking Concepts, n. 1 , , 20 n. 1 (2004) (citation omitted); , Safeway Ins.

Only [Premium]'s [, ] (1969) and its progeny.

or Morris agreements based on United Servs.

34 n. 2, ¶ 1, , 77 n. 2 (App.2003), "we utilize the term 'Dam-ron/Morris ’ agreement, , and United Servs.

An agreement with the same general characteristics entered into when the insurer refuses to defend is referred to as a "Damron agreement.”

Throughout this opinion we utilize the term "Damron/Morris” agreement, , and United Servs.

(upholding settlement and assignment to plaintiffs of insured’s claim against insurer after it failed to defend liability lawsuit).