Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Farm Mutual Automobile Insuarnce v. Lindsey, 897 P.2d 631.

31 citing documents.

State Farm v. Balzan Ariz. 2026
vacated, properly relied on community property principles to determine who “purchased” the coverage.
State Farm v. Balzan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State Farm v. Balzan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Kay Franklin v. Csaa General Insurance Ariz. 2023
Kay Franklin v. Csaa General Insurance Ariz. 2023
(stating in dicta that insurers may prevent stacking by issuing a single policy covering multiple vehicles).
Hanfelder v. GEICO Indem. Co. 422 P.3d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hanfelder v. GEICO Indem. Co. 422 P.3d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Co. v. Lindsey , , 331, , 633 (1995).
Yeager v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Yeager v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
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
P.2d 631 (1995), a case in which our supreme court addressed the anti-stacking provision now found in § 20-259.01(H).
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Sharp 277 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2012
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Sharp 277 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2012
(noting that Subsection (H) allows insurers to preclude insureds from recovering “from the same coverages under two or more policies” (emphasis added)).
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 174 P.3d 270 Ariz. 2008
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 174 P.3d 270 Ariz. 2008
(“other vehicle” exclusion); State Farm Mut.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 13 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2000
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 13 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2000
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
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 4 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 4 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State Farm maintains that, , it reasonably believed that its policies did comply with the statute, insisting the law was unsettled at the time it refused to pay these claims.
Beckler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 987 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Beckler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 987 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Farm asserts that, when entering into the stipulation
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Arrington 963 P.2d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Arrington 963 P.2d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-31 , -33 (1995)(allowing stacking of UIM coverages from multiple policies when the parties stipulated that the life of the decedent insured and the injuries of another insured had values well in excess of all available insurance coverage); Croci v. Travelers Ins.
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
and that its enforcement would violate public policy and defeat his reasonable expectations as to what he purchased.
Ah v. Arizona Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Ah v. Arizona Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
vacated on other grounds
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
vacated on other grounds