Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gordinier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 742 P.2d 277.

78 citing documents.

Gerald Walker v. Auto-Owners Insurance Comp Ariz. 2022
Gerald Walker v. Auto-Owners Insurance Comp Ariz. 2022
Co., that the RCLD methodology would be used to determine actual cash value.
Vacc v. Chicago Title Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Vacc v. Chicago Title Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Goldberger v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Goldberger v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Viking v. Link Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Viking v. Link Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Co., (emphasis in original).
Laufer v. Auditore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Laufer v. Auditore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., and Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins.
Cline v. Cbic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cline v. Cbic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Beaver v. American Family Mutual Insurance 324 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Beaver v. American Family Mutual Insurance 324 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., (emphasis omitted).
First American Title Insurance v. Action Acquisitions, LLC 187 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2008
First American Title Insurance v. Action Acquisitions, LLC 187 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2008
Co., -73, -84 (1987) (citations omitted).
Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Insurance Agency, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Insurance Agency, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
8 To the extent Cullen suggests our supreme court’s decision in Gordinier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., P.2d 277 (1987), means we should examine the reasonable expectations of the hopeful insured instead of the contracting parties’, we disagree.
MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN RANCH COMMUNITY ASS'N v. Simons 165 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN RANCH COMMUNITY ASS'N v. Simons 165 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Co., , 268 n. 2, , 279 n. 2 (1987) (explaining that disregarding evidence that had not been formally filed, but which was before the trial court, “would be excessively technical and would exalt form over substance”).
STATE FARM FIRE & CAS. IN. CO. v. Grabowski 150 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
STATE FARM FIRE & CAS. IN. CO. v. Grabowski 150 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Co., , ¶ 18 , Restatement § 211(3).
American Family Mutual Insurance v. White 65 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
American Family Mutual Insurance v. White 65 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Barerra 21 P.3d 395 Ariz. 2001
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Barerra 21 P.3d 395 Ariz. 2001
¶ 7 We hold that the DUI exclusion in the present policy violates the reasonable expectations doctrine of Darner Motor Sales, , Gordinier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
Haisch v. Allstate Insurance 5 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Barerra 998 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Barerra 998 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 14 In Gordinier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., , the Arizona Supreme Court held that unambiguous boilerplate terms in standardized insurance contracts would riot be enforced in a limited number of situations: 1.
American States Insurance v. C & G Contracting, Inc. 924 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
American States Insurance v. C & G Contracting, Inc. 924 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Co., -73 , -84 (1987) (citations omitted); Averett v. Farmers Ins.
Krizanich v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 887 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Krizanich v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 887 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Co., , : Where the contract terms, although not ambiguous to the court, cannot be understood by the reasonably intelligent consumer who might check on his or her rights, the court will interpret them in light of the objective, reasonable expectations of the average insured.
Anderson v. Country Life Insurance 886 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Anderson v. Country Life Insurance 886 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Falness 872 P.2d 1233 Ariz. 1994
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Falness 872 P.2d 1233 Ariz. 1994
Co., , Darner, , Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 211 cmt.
Averett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 869 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1994
Averett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 869 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1994
Co., -73 , -84 (1987), we stated: As a synthesis of the cases and authorities demonstrates, Arizona courts will not enforce even unambiguous boilerplate terms in standardized insurance contracts in a limited variety of situations: 1.
Services Holding Co. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 883 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Services Holding Co. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance 883 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
e court has construed subsection 3 to prohibit courts from enforcing even unambiguous contractual terms in limited circumstances, including “[w]here some activity reasonably attributable to the insurer has induced a particular insured reasonably to believe that he has coverage, although such coverage is expressly and unambiguously denied by the policy.” -73 , -84 (1987).
Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta 880 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta 880 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lewis v. Oliver 873 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Lewis v. Oliver 873 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Pruett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 857 P.2d 1301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Pruett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 857 P.2d 1301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
On July 28, 1987, the Arizona Supreme Court released its opinion in Gordinier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1992