Cited by

We interpret statutes and review a superior court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered, McAlister v. Loeb & Loeb, LLP, ___ Ariz. ___, ¶ 21

¶ 8 (2015) (statutory interpretation); Bertleson, 204 Ariz. at 126, ¶ 6 (statute’s constitutionality).

See Leibsohn, 254 Ariz. at 4, ¶ 10; ¶¶ 26-27 (2021) (interpreting a statutory phrase based on context after noting competing dictionary definitions of "grant"); ¶ 8 (2015) ("[I]f the language is ambiguous, we look to the statute's history, context, consequences, and purpose.").

¶16 “When interpreting a statute, our primary goal is to give effect to the legislature’s intent.” ¶ 8 (2015) (quotation and citation omitted).

¶13 “When interpreting a statute, our primary goal is to give effect to the legislature’s intent.” ¶ 8 (2015).

¶7 “When interpreting a statute, our primary goal is to give effect to the legislature’s intent.” ¶ 8 (2015) (citation and quotation omitted).

“Our primary goal is to give effect to the [L]egislature’s intent.” ¶ 8 (2015) (quoting J.D.

¶25 “We interpret statutes and review summary judgment rulings de novo.” ¶ 8 (2015).

If the statute is ambiguous, we may consider “the statute’s history, context, consequences, and purpose.” ¶ 8 (2015).

¶11 We first examine the text of the statute to determine the meaning of “manager.” See, ¶ 8 (2015) (“When interpreting a statute, our primary goal is to give effect to the legislature’s intent,” and “[w]e derive that intent by examining the statute’s language; if the language is ambiguous, we look to the statute’s history, context, consequences, and purpose.”(citation omitted)).

¶ 8 (2015); see Mail Boxes v. Indus.

¶52 The UMA requires insurers to offer UM and UIM coverage to their insureds and “creates a ‘safe harbor’ if the insured signs a [Department of Insurance (DOI)]-approved form rejecting UM or UIM coverage.”

¶ 6, (“Under Arizona’s common law, insurance agents owe a duty of reasonable care when obtaining insurance on behalf of their clients.”).

Consequently, in Arizona, insurance agents owe “a duty of ‘reasonable care, skill, and diligence’ in dealing with clients.” ¶ 20, (quoting Darner, 140 Ariz. at 397, 682 P.2d at 402); ¶ 6, (holding that an insurance agent’s compliance with A.R.S.