Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Spain v. Valley Forge Insurance, 731 P.2d 84.

67 citing documents.

Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Co., -94, -89 (1986); Calvert v. Farmers Ins.
Frank and Bettina Gambrell v. Ids Property Casualty Insurance Co. 357 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Frank and Bettina Gambrell v. Ids Property Casualty Insurance Co. 357 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Co., 731 14We note the Gambrells repeatedly state that Frank was “in” the milk truck.
Geller v. Lesk 285 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Geller v. Lesk 285 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co., -95 , -90 (1986) (supp. opinion).
Assyia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 273 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Assyia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 273 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
for the proposition that a court must reject reconstructed records unless it holds an evidentiary hearing.
Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Co., -92 , -87 (1986) (UM coverage is designed to protect “insured victims” of an uninsured motorist’s negligence); State Farm Mut.
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 222 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 222 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Co., , (legislature has “strong commitment to ...
Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC. 212 P.3d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC. 212 P.3d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co., , (expressing “unwillingness] to hold that counsel fees can never be awarded to those who work on a contingent fee basis and do not keep time records” and remanding to trial court to engage in the “factfinding process often made necessary by reconstructed records”); see also Orfaly v. Tucso
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 145 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 145 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Co., , (“The statute establishes a public policy that every insured is entitled to recover under his or her [uninsured motorist] coverage the damages he or she would have been able to recover from a negligent uninsured driver had that driver maintained a policy of liability insurance with a solv
Taylor v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America 9 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2000
Taylor v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America 9 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2000
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Arrington 963 P.2d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Arrington 963 P.2d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Co., -92 , -87 (1986)(quoting 12A Couch § 45:652, at 212 (2d ed.1981)(addressing uninsured-motorist (“UM”) coverage)); Wilson, 162 Ariz. at 254 , 782 P.2d at 730 (UIM coverage based on same public policy as UM coverage).
Napier v. Bertram 937 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Napier v. Bertram 937 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
American States Insurance v. C & G Contracting, Inc. 924 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
American States Insurance v. C & G Contracting, Inc. 924 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Co., , (UM offset provision void where insured is injured by two negligent drivers); Calvert v. Farmers Ins.
Terry v. Auto-Owners Insurance 908 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Terry v. Auto-Owners Insurance 908 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Then, in a review of previous case law, , in which it held that an insured who was not fully compensated could recover under both liability and uninsured motorist coverage.
Transportation Insurance v. Martinez 899 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Transportation Insurance v. Martinez 899 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Estate of Ball v. American Motorists Insurance 888 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1995
Estate of Ball v. American Motorists Insurance 888 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1995
Estate of Ball v. American Motorists Insurance 874 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Giannini v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 837 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Giannini v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 837 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
[(1986)], notwithstanding that both of the uninsured coverages are with the same company (State Farm) in this matter.
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
Schultz v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies 805 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1991
Schultz v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies 805 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1991
Government Employees Insurance v. Fenton 793 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Government Employees Insurance v. Fenton 793 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Gilmore 796 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Gilmore 796 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Co., , (automobile insurance policy); Calvert v. Farmers Ins.
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
1 State Farm claims Wade and its progeny have upheld the validity of such clauses, and that the trial court improperly relied on a recent supreme court case, , when it found its other insurance clause unenforceable.
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
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Duran 785 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1989
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Duran 785 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1989
Co., , (invalidat *4 ing an offset provision reducing amount payable under UM coverage by amounts paid under liability coverage).
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.
Duran v. Hartford Insurance 772 P.2d 577 Ariz. 1989