Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA v. Santa Cruz, 800 P.2d 585.

63 citing documents.

In Re Pima County Mental Health No 20200860221 Ariz. 2023
In Re Pima County Mental Health No 20200860221 Ariz. 2023
v. Superior Court, (“The use of the word ’shall’ indicates a mandatory intent by the legislature.”).
Hubert v. Carmony 494 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Hubert v. Carmony 494 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
v. Superior Court In & For County of Santa Cruz, (“‘shall’ indicates a mandatory intent by the legislature”).
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit 399 P.3d 663 Ariz. 2017
Scorzo v. Az med/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ct., vacated on other grounds, P.2d 585 (1990).
Wallace v. Moffatt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wallace v. Moffatt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Melendez v. Hallmark Insurance 305 P.3d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Melendez v. Hallmark Insurance 305 P.3d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
v. Superior Court, , see also Johnson v. Cont’l Ins.
Joshua J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 286 P.3d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Joshua J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 286 P.3d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
v. Superior Court (Villagrana)
National Bank v. Schwartz 283 P.3d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
National Bank v. Schwartz 283 P.3d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Jackson v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Jackson v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
v. Superior Court, -86, -89 (1990).
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 248 P.3d 193 Ariz. 2011
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 248 P.3d 193 Ariz. 2011
v. Superior Court (Villagrana), 166 Ariz. 82, 85-86, -89 (1990) (holding that the “appropriate remedy” for failure to make the statutorily required offer of UM coverage “is to make such coverage part of the contract by operation of law”).
Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Estate of Palomera-Ruiz 231 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Estate of Palomera-Ruiz 231 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
v. Superior Court, (noting that “shall” is presumably mandatory).
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
v. Superior Court, , Navajo County Juv.
Arizona Libertarian Party v. Schmeral 28 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
v. Santa Cruz Superior Court, , 85, , 588 (1990)
Rowland v. Great States Insurance 20 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Rowland v. Great States Insurance 20 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
on which Rowland relies, § 23 1023(C) does not impose a duty on workers’ compensation insurers to offer or provide any coverage.
HCZ Construction Inc. v. First Franklin Financial Corp. 18 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
HCZ Construction Inc. v. First Franklin Financial Corp. 18 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
v. Superior Court, , Navajo County Juv.
Doe v. Miles Inc. 945 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
noted, “ ‘[t]he discovery rule applies to the facts which give rise to the cause of action, not to the legal significance of such facts.’ ” Kowske v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., , , vacated in part on other grounds
Doe v. Roe 931 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Doe v. Roe 931 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona does not look with favor on the defense of the statute of limitations, , and the discovery rule developed as a tool to mitigate the harshness of applying the statute to a plaintiff who could not have known any of the facts underlying the cause of action.
HARRIS TRUST BANK OF AZ v. Superior Court 933 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
HARRIS TRUST BANK OF AZ v. Superior Court 933 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Lawrence v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 907 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Lawrence v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 907 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Tallent v. National General Insurance 903 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Tallent v. National General Insurance 903 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In re the Appeal in Navajo County Juvenile Action No. JV-94000086 898 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In re the Appeal in Navajo County Juvenile Action No. JV-94000086 898 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Biaett v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co.
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 894 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1995
Hill v. Chubb Life American Insurance 894 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1995
v. Santa Cruz, , (noting that an action may lie in either tort or contract for the breach of a duty rooted in an insurance contract).
Estate of Ball v. American Motorists Insurance 888 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1995
Estate of Ball v. American Motorists Insurance 888 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1995
v. Santa Cruz, , we said: A.R.S.
Estate of Ball v. American Motorists Insurance 874 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Estate of Ball v. American Motorists Insurance 874 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Jimenez v. Lewis 862 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
“The discovery rule applies to the facts which give rise to the cause of action, not to the legal significance of such facts.” , vacated on other grounds
Evenstad v. State 875 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993