Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Averett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 869 P.2d 505.

28 citing documents.

Yf Group v. Farmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Yf Group v. Farmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Co., (“It is well established that a contracting party’s reasonable expectations may affect the enforceability of non-negotiated terms in a standardized agreement.”) (emphasis added).
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. of Ariz., Arceneaux v. State Farm Mut.
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
Co. of Ariz., (“It is well 7 In his reply brief, Cullen asserts Auto Owners failed to respond to his argument that “the trial court erred by wrongly deciding a disputed factual issue (whether the policy violated the reasonable expectations of Michael Cullen .
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
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp. 119 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp. 119 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Co. of Ariz., , (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts (“Restatement”) § 211 cmt.
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.
Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Ass'n v. Bach 973 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1999
Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Ass'n v. Bach 973 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1999
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Co. of Arizona, , that a household exclusion may be entirely unenforceable if it is contrary to the policyholder’s reasonable expectations, does not affect Arceneaux's holding regarding subsection (G) or its criticism of Sandoval .
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Voss 935 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Voss 935 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
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
Ogden v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 933 P.2d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Ogden v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 933 P.2d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
“It is well-established [in Arizona] that a contracting party’s reasonable expectations may affect the enforceability of non-negotiated terms in a standardized agreement.”
Transportation Insuarnce v. Bruining 921 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1996
Transportation Insuarnce v. Bruining 921 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1996
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., , (examining the relationship between the rule of reasonable expectations and the household exclusion).