Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Transportation Insurance Company v. Wade, 475 P.2d 253.

68 citing documents.

Ruiz v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 865 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1993
Ruiz v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 865 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1993
*104 (quoting Stephens v. Allied Mut.
Croci v. Travelers Insurance 788 P.2d 79 Ariz. 1990
Rashid v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 787 P.2d 1066 Ariz. 1990
Rashid v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 787 P.2d 1066 Ariz. 1990
The court stated, however, that “even though the discussion of public policy in Herder supports appellee Rashid’s argument, , ” Memo.
Croci v. Travelers Insurance 788 P.2d 79 Ariz. 1990
for the proposition that its excess/escape clause is valid in Arizona.
Brown v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 788 P.2d 56 Ariz. 1989
Brown v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 788 P.2d 56 Ariz. 1989
we held that offset provisions in other insurance clauses in the UM coverage in two separate policies purchased could be invoked.
Croci v. Travelers Insurance 781 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Croci v. Travelers Insurance 781 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
] [2] case, , [1986], , it is clear that the law in Arizona does not invalidate the type of language contained in the Travelers policy except when the Court finds that the clause reduces mandated coverage.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Janssen 742 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Janssen 742 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Spain v. Valley Forge Insurance 731 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1987
Spain v. Valley Forge Insurance 731 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1987
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Ueki 724 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Ueki 724 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
and Geyer v. Reserve Ins.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wise 721 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wise 721 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Mason v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 714 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Mason v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 714 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Co. v. Wade, [ , ].” Id.
Cole v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 703 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Cole v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 703 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 697 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1985
Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 697 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1985
McClellan v. Sentry Indemnity Co. 683 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
McClellan v. Sentry Indemnity Co. 683 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
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
Dairyland Insurance Company v. Lopez, 22 Ariz.App.
Bakken v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 678 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Bakken v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 678 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Bakken v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 678 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
involved a wrongful death, as does this action.
Bakken v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 678 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
involved a wrongful death, as does this action.
Chase v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 641 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Chase v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 641 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
The fundamental purpose of the SRA is the “providing of security against uncompensated damages arising from operation of motor vehicles on our highways.” Schecter v. Killingsworth, 93 Ariz. at 285 , 380 P.2d at 144
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Woodruff 619 P.2d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Woodruff 619 P.2d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Although it is not a holding directed to this question, the Arizona Supreme Court has upheld the “other insurance”
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Williams 600 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Williams 600 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
This clause is commonly known as an “other insurance” provision, the first paragraph providing “excess coverage” and the second “pro-rata coverage.” The validity of “other insurance”
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Herron 599 P.2d 768 Ariz. 1979
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Herron 599 P.2d 768 Ariz. 1979
*318 Finally, appellee argues that the law of Arizona does not allow “stacking” of uninsured motorist coverages and that appellant may not collect an additional $35,000 under the provisions of his own policy because this would constitute “stacking.” , , and McCarthy v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co., 454 F.2d 393 (9th Cir. 1972).
Love v. Farmers Insurance Group 588 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Love v. Farmers Insurance Group 588 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Tarantino 561 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Tarantino 561 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
Transamerica Insurance Company v. McKee 551 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Transamerica Insurance Company v. McKee 551 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Williams v. Williams 531 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Williams v. Williams 531 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
a companion case to Porter, supra, the Supreme Court said: “ * - * * The uninsured motorist statute established in this state a public policy that every insured is entitled to recover damages he or she would have been able to recover if the offending motorist had maintained a policy of liability