Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance, 733 P.2d 1073.

198 citing documents.

Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Nielson v. Patterson 65 P.3d 911 Ariz. 2003
Nielson v. Patterson 65 P.3d 911 Ariz. 2003
Beaudry v. Insurance Co. of the West 50 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Beaudry v. Insurance Co. of the West 50 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Co., -99 , -82 (1987) (holding that evidence of insurer’s routine practice of unjustifiably reducing amount offered for claims was sufficient evidence of “evil mind” to support claim for punitive damages).
State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Co., , (“to be relevant, evidence need only alter the probability, not prove or disprove the existence, of a consequential fact”).
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Co., , (finding that exemplary damages are designed “to express society’s disapproval of outrageous conduct and to deter such conduct by the defendant and others in the future”); Linthicum, 150 Ariz. at 330 , 723 P.2d at 679 (stating that such damages are “to punish the wrongdoer and to dete
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Murcott v. Best Western International, Inc. 9 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Schmitz v. Aston 3 P.3d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Co., -502 , -85 (1987)).
Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 995 P.2d 276 Ariz. 2000
Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 995 P.2d 276 Ariz. 2000
Co., , (past practices relevant and admissible).
Yauch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 10 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Yauch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 10 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Hilgeman v. American Mortgage Securities, Inc. 994 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Co., , we do not equate default with waiver particularly when, as here, the party raises the constitutional issue in seeking relief from the trial court under Rule 60(c).
Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 977 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Zilisch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 977 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-96 , -79 (1987), in which our supreme court noted, without expressing approval or disapproval, that the court of appeals in a memo decision had held that an apparently similar practice was admissible on the issue of punitive damages.
McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coalition v. Vizcaino 945 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1997
McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coalition v. Vizcaino 945 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1997
Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Miel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 912 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Miel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 912 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Co., , (evidence of prior similar claims is relevant in *109 a bad faith case).
State v. Leyva 909 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Leyva 909 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Resolution Trust Corp. v. City of Scottsdale 866 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Resolution Trust Corp. v. City of Scottsdale 866 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Foust 869 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Foust 869 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 832 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1992
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co. 832 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1992
Hooper v. Truly Nolen of America, Inc. 832 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hooper v. Truly Nolen of America, Inc. 832 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Co., , the court suggested that the plaintiff may prove entitlement to punitive damages via a number of factors, no single one of which is exclusive.
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER 836 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER 836 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Chaparral Development v. RMED International, Inc. 823 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Chaparral Development v. RMED International, Inc. 823 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Co., , 495 n. 3, , 1078 n. 3, cert.
State v. Takacs 819 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Takacs 819 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991