Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Morris, 741 P.2d 246.

110 citing documents.

Centerpoint v. Commonwealth Ariz. 2025
Centerpoint v. Commonwealth Ariz. 2025
Cravens v. Montano 567 P.3d 745 Ariz. 2025
Cravens v. Montano 567 P.3d 745 Ariz. 2025
¶2 We also consider the enforceability of a contingent agreement under United Services Automobile Ass’n v. Morris
Centerpoint v. Fidelity Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Centerpoint v. Fidelity Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Auto Ass’n v. Morris, ).
Apollo Education v. National Union Fire Insurance Ariz. 2021
Apollo Education v. National Union Fire Insurance Ariz. 2021
¶16 Apollo argues that the outcome here is controlled by this Court’s decision in United Services Automobile Association v. Morris, which held that “[t]he test as to whether the settlement was reasonable and prudent is what a reasonably prudent person in the insured[’s] position would have settled for on the merits of the claimant’s case.” (emphasis changed).
Viking v. Link Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Viking v. Link Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Dennis Teufel v. American family/kerry Hanson Ariz. 2018
Teufel v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. 419 P.3d 546 Ariz. 2018
Teufel v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. 419 P.3d 546 Ariz. 2018
117, , 250 (1987) ; see also Quihuis , 235 Ariz. at 544 ¶ 27, 334 P.3d at 727 (citing quoted language from Morris with approval); W. Cas.
Dennis Teufel v. American family/kerry Hanson Ariz. 2018
Ass’n v. Morris, see also Quihuis, 235 Ariz. at 544 ¶ 27 (citing quoted language from Morris with approval); W. Cas.
Sp Syntax v. Federal Ins. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sp Syntax v. Federal Ins. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
7 Given our conclusions above, we need not address Federal’s contention that the prior notice exclusions (Section 4(d) of the National Union Primary Policy and Section 4(a) of the Federal Side A Policy) independently barred coverage for the Silver Point Action or Federal’s and its progeny.
Fidelity National Title Insurance v. Centerpoint Mechanic Lien Claims, LLC 357 P.3d 170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Fidelity National Title Insurance v. Centerpoint Mechanic Lien Claims, LLC 357 P.3d 170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
C A T T A N I, Judge: ¶1 In this case, we address whether a title insurance company is liable under United Services Automobile Ass’n v. Morris, P.2d 246 (1987), for damages agreed to by its insureds in a settlement agreement resolving third-party mechanics’ lien claims against the insureds’ interest in a real estate development.
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 350 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 350 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Quihuis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 334 P.3d 719 Ariz. 2014
Quihuis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 334 P.3d 719 Ariz. 2014
th liability and coverage has (1) collateral estoppel effect and precludes litigation of that issue in a subsequent coverage action against the insurer, as held in Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood, [209 Ariz. 137,] or (2) no preclusive or binding effect, as suggested in United Services Automobile Association v. Morris, []
Colorado Casualty Insurance v. Safety Control Co. 288 P.3d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Colorado Casualty Insurance v. Safety Control Co. 288 P.3d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ass’n v. Morris, , Ariz. Prop.
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 279 P.3d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Colorado Casualty Insurance v. Safety Control Co. 269 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Colorado Casualty Insurance v. Safety Control Co. 269 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ass’n v. Morris, , Ariz. Prop.
Leflet v. Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance 247 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Leflet v. Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance 247 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Invoking United Services Automobile Ass’n v. Morris, , the developer and its insurers stipulated to an $8.475 million judgment against them and assigned to Plaintiffs their claims against various subcontractors and their insurers (“Non-Participating Insurers” or “NPIs”).
Penn-America Insurance v. Sanchez 202 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Monterey Homes Arizona, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Insurance 212 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Penn-America Insurance v. Sanchez 202 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ass’n v. Morris, , see also Waddell v. Titan Ins.
Monterey Homes Arizona, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Insurance 212 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
This has been the case since our supreme court decided United Services Automobile Ass’n v. Morris
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 204 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Ass’n v. Morris, , (reasonable settlement amount “involves evaluating the facts bearing on the liability and damages aspects of claimant’s case, as well as the risks of going to trial”); Backus, 534 Ariz. Adv.
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 204 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
MT BUILDERS, LLC v. Fisher Roofing Inc. 197 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
MT BUILDERS, LLC v. Fisher Roofing Inc. 197 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Assoc, v. Morris, , (insurer will be bound by stipulated judgment reached pursuant to settlement made by insured if insured gave insurer notice and opportunity to defend, but only to the extent settlement was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances; such an approach “accords with general principles
PUEBLO SANTA FE TOWNHOMES OWNERS'ASS'N v. Transcontinental Insurance Co. 178 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
PUEBLO SANTA FE TOWNHOMES OWNERS'ASS'N v. Transcontinental Insurance Co. 178 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 17 Citing United Services Automobile Ass’n v. Morris, , the court noted that an insurer that believes it has a valid coverage exclusion and wishes to defend a suit under a reservation of rights will be estopped from litigating coverage if it does not “properly and timely communicate” its reservation of rights.
Webb v. Gittlen 174 P.3d 275 Ariz. 2008
Webb v. Gittlen 174 P.3d 275 Ariz. 2008
Ass’n v. Morris, 154 Ariz. 113, 120
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Martin 113 P.3d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Martin 113 P.3d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Ass’n v. Morris, P.2d 246 (1987).
Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 106 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2005
Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero 106 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2005
Ass’n v. Morris, P.2d 246 (1987).
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
After AAU filed this DRA to contest coverage, Intervenors and TAA/City entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to United Services Automobile Ass’n v. Morris