Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 854 P.2d 1134.

236 citing documents.

Allstate v. Watts 418 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Allstate v. Watts 418 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Grady's v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hta-Scw v. Roskamp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Hta-Scw v. Roskamp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bnccorp v. Hub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bnccorp v. Hub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., n.9, n.9 (1993); ¶ 11
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., (citations and quotation omitted).
Gradis v. Banner Health Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gradis v. Banner Health Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Thienes v. City Center Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thienes v. City Center Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
cheatham/huey v. Diciccio/phoenix Law Enforcement Association 379 P.3d 211 Ariz. 2016
cheatham/huey v. Diciccio/phoenix Law Enforcement Association 379 P.3d 211 Ariz. 2016
Co., , (noting that courts seek to interpret contracts to give effect to parties’ expressed intent).
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., 11 KIMBALL et al. v. PERKINS et al. Decision of the Court (1993).
First American Title Insurance v. Johnson Bank 372 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2016
First American Title Insurance v. Johnson Bank 372 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2016
Cantex v. Princeton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cantex v. Princeton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
If a contract contains ambiguous language, the meaning of such language is subject to “a factual determination concerning the intent of the parties.” Hartford, 178 Ariz. at 111; (holding that when a contract term is “reasonably susceptible” to more than one interpretation, extrinsic evidence is admissible to discern the parties’ intent).
Hankerson v. Hankerson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hankerson v. Hankerson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., 158 n.9 (1993); ELM Ret.
Foltin v. Foltin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Foltin v. Foltin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Schott v. Schott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Schott v. Schott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC 362 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC 362 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ins., looking first to “‘the plain meaning of the words as viewed in the context of the contract as a whole,’” ELM Retirement Ctr., L.P.
Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Hogue 360 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Hogue 360 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ganley v. Dependable Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ganley v. Dependable Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., (providing that the parole evidence 4 GANLEY v. DMTS Decision of the Court rule prohibits the admission of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the terms of a contract).
Crown v. Ap Wireless Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Crown v. Ap Wireless Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., -59, -45 (1993); State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., L.L.C., ¶ 28
commerce/cra v. Zinke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
commerce/cra v. Zinke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., -59, -45 (1993) (when “contract language is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation,” its interpretation should be submitted to the fact-finder); J.D.
Shurts v. Shurts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Shurts v. Shurts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sullivan v. Homes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Don v. Entrust Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sullivan v. Homes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Don v. Entrust Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Southwest v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Southwest v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The ESTATE OF JOSEFA U. DeCAMACHO v. LA SOLANA CARE AND REHAB, INC. 316 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
The ESTATE OF JOSEFA U. DeCAMACHO v. LA SOLANA CARE AND REHAB, INC. 316 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
First Credit Union v. Courtney 309 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
First Credit Union v. Courtney 309 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by