Cited by

¶ 24 (2016) (undisclosed CC&Rs that prevented the commercial development of property); Dunlap Invs.

v. Johnson Bank, ¶ 22 (2016) (elements of contract claim include “resulting damages”) ¶ 21 (App. 2006) (reversed jury’s award for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on lack of proof of damages); see also Elyousef, 245 P.3d at 549–50 (applyin

¶ 8 (2016), unless it can be shown that the parties intended a special meaning, Taylor, 175 Ariz. at 153.

¶ 20 (2016) (finding the statutory definition of “title insurance” not helpful in interpreting valuation date for covered loss).

v. Johnson Bank, ¶ 8 (2016) (quoting First Am.

¶ 8 (2016) (citations omitted).

¶ 8 (2016) (citations omitted).

¶ 8, (noting that when reviewing the superior court’s grant of summary judgment, appellate court views the facts in the light most favorable to party against whom judgment was entered).

¶ 14, (“[W]hen an undisclosed title defect prevents the known, intended use of the property and causes the borrower to default on the loan, the lender’s diminution-in-value loss should be calculated as of the date the title policy was issued rather than as of the date of foreclosure.”).

¶ 8 (2016) (citations omitted).

¶ 8, (appellate court reviews grant of summary judgment de novo and views 1We cite to the current statutes as they were in effect at the time Chauncey executed the deed—the date of the event giving rise to this action.