Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. McKeon, 765 P.2d 513.

50 citing documents.

Honorhealth v. abboud/weinstein Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Honorhealth v. abboud/weinstein Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State Farm Automobile v. Jacey Lee Orlando Ariz. 2025
State Farm Automobile v. Jacey Lee Orlando Ariz. 2025
Frank and Bettina Gambrell v. Ids Property Casualty Insurance Co. 357 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Frank and Bettina Gambrell v. Ids Property Casualty Insurance Co. 357 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(“The statute only excepts public livery, rental, or commercial transportation vehicles from [the UM coverage offering] requirement.”).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. White 295 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. White 295 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 222 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 222 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
DIANA H. v. Rubin 171 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Taylor v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America 9 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2000
Taylor v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America 9 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2000
As this court noted in Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. McKeon, “narrowing [UM] coverage contravenes a long-standing legislative policy to guarantee all insureds protection against uninsured motorists.” , see also Spain v. Valley Forge Ins.
Drucker v. Greater Phoenix Transportation Co. 3 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Drucker v. Greater Phoenix Transportation Co. 3 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(finding purported exclusion contrary to the “legislative policy to guarantee all insureds protection against uninsured motorists”); Transportation Ins.
Beckler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 987 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Young 985 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Young 985 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Carden v. Golden Eagle Insurance 947 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Carden v. Golden Eagle Insurance 947 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
the supreme court rejected an attempt to provide non-uniform awards of coverage for different insureds as violative of the mandatory offering terms of § 20-259.01.
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
Casualty Co. v. McKeon, 159 Ariz. Ill, 115, (“named driver” exclusion void as to UM coverage); Arizona Property and Casualty Ins.
Farmers Insurance v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 912 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Farmers Insurance v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 912 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
the Arizona Uniform Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act (the Act), AR.S.
Transportation Insurance v. Martinez 899 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Transportation Insurance v. Martinez 899 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
the Arizona Supreme Court considered the effect of a named driver exclusion on UM coverage.
Employer's Mutual Casualty Co. v. McKeon 821 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Employer's Mutual Casualty Co. v. McKeon 821 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Gilmore 812 P.2d 977 Ariz. 1991
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Gilmore 812 P.2d 977 Ariz. 1991
Schultz v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies 805 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1991
Schultz v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies 805 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1991
(named driver exclusion as applied to UM coverage); Calvert v. Farmers Ins.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Gilmore 796 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Gilmore 796 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
contends that the two statutes should not be read in pari materia.
Rashid v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 787 P.2d 1066 Ariz. 1990
Rashid v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 787 P.2d 1066 Ariz. 1990
(named driver exclusion as applied to UM coverage); Calvert v. Farmers Ins.
Brown v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 788 P.2d 56 Ariz. 1989
Brown v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 788 P.2d 56 Ariz. 1989
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Duran 785 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1989
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Duran 785 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1989
Calvert v. Farmer’s Ins.
Bartning v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 783 P.2d 790 Ariz. 1989
Bartning v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 783 P.2d 790 Ariz. 1989
As further support, the court of appeals cited this court’s
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1989
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1989
Higgins v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 770 P.2d 324 Ariz. 1989
Higgins v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 770 P.2d 324 Ariz. 1989
(holding that the named driver exclusion was invalid when applied to either mandatory uninsured motorist coverage or the increased uninsured motorist coverage that the statute required the insurer to offer and that the insured had purchased).
Bartning v. State Farm Fire & Casualty 780 P.2d 1389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Bartning v. State Farm Fire & Casualty 780 P.2d 1389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
-16 (1988) where the court, in explaining the intent of our uninsured motorist statute stated: “The intent is to protect each insured no matter where he is (within the policy’s territorial limits) or what he is doing.” (Emphasis added.)
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. CNA Insurance 767 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. CNA Insurance 767 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
which held that public policy prevents an insurance company from withholding uninsured motorist coverage benefits from a "named driver exclusion,” does not require a different result.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by