Cited by

(noting “a party which repudiates its contract obligations on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of a contract has committed an anticipatory breach”).

(stating that when an insurer breaches any of its express or implied duties under the insurance contract, thereby exposing an insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits, the insured “is generally held to be freed” from its obligations under the contract).

(internal quotations omitted).

¶ 7 Relying on Arizona Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Helme , , Appellants argue the number of independent acts that caused the pole to break determines the number of occurrences, and assert Southwestern committed five independent negligent acts that caused the pole to break: (1) utilizing wooden poles in its training yard and failing to conduct a pre-climb

A. The Tsirekidze and Silver Point Actions Are “Related” under the Terms of the Federal Excess Policy ¶17 Silver Point first contends the Silver Point Action and the Tsirekidze Action are not “related.” Silver Point argues “[t]he term ‘related’ requires a ‘causal connection with another act or omission,’” and that none of the private representations at issue in the Silver Point Action were “causally connected” to the public filings at issue in the Tsirekidze Action.

); see also Damron, 105 Ariz. at 153, 460 P.2d at 999 (quoting Critz v. Farmers Ins.

It relies for this argument on a provision in the policies that stated, “No insured will, except at that insured’s own cost, voluntarily make a payment, assume any obligation, or incur any expense, other than for first aid, without our consent.” ¶ 44 In Arizona Property & , the supreme court observed that the purpose of this provision in the standard liability policy is “to protect the insurer’s right to a fair adjudication of the insured’s liability and to prevent collusion between the insu

is effectively referring to a loss” and thus not subject to a separate deductible, which, because each theft was less than the deductible would in effect result in no recovery).4 Accordingly, 4 P.2d 451 (1987).

P.2d 451 (1987) (involving an agreement entered into after alleged anticipatory breach of insurer’s duty to indemnify); Miel v. State Farm Mut.

Damron, 105 Ariz. at 153, 460 P.2d at 999); Himes, 205 Ariz. at 37, ¶ 15 , 66 P.3d at 80 .

(suggesting that the Fund has both a “duty to indemnify and to fairly consider settlement proposals”).

mandated insurance coverage of $15,000 for the negligent entrustor plus $15,000 for the negligent operator when their negligent acts concurred to cause injury.