Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tallent v. National General Insurance, 915 P.2d 665.

28 citing documents.

Hague v. Bill Houston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hague v. Bill Houston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 20-259.01(A) and (B), Defendants maintained (1) they had fulfilled the statutory duty of offering, in writing, UM/UIM coverage with limits not less than the liability limits of the policy; (2) no duty existed for them to provide a further explanation of UIM coverage; (3) any duty of the insurance agents did not go beyond that of the principal insurance company (State Farm); and (4) even assuming Defendants had such duties, those duties were not breached.
Wilks Et Vir v. Manobianco 352 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2015
Wilks Et Vir v. Manobianco 352 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2015
Co., –67, –66 (1996); Estate of Ball v. Am.
Katelin Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance Company Dba Freedom National Insurance Services Ariz. 2015
Katelin Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance Company Dba Freedom National Insurance Services 344 P.3d 337 Ariz. 2015
Katelin Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance Company Dba Freedom National Insurance Services 344 P.3d 337 Ariz. 2015
Co., –68, –67 (1996) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1081 (6th ed. 1990)).
Katelin Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance Company Dba Freedom National Insurance Services Ariz. 2015
Co., –68, –67 (1996) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1081 (6th ed. 1990)).
Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance 322 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance 322 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., P.2d 665 (1996) and Ballesteros, P.3d 193, and, more specifically, to Melendez v. Hallmark Ins.
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
§§ ] 20-398 [ (Supp.2012) ] and 20-1111 [ (2010) ]) and Regulatory Bulletin 2003-3.” , Melendez asserted that “[a]n offer must contain ‘definite terms,’ including terms that enable the offered to assent to such definite terms” and that “[t]he absence of the definite term of the ‘offer’ (i.e. the premium) preclude[d] the Selection Rejection Form from constituting an ‘offer’ pursuan
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
Co., , see Ballesteros v. Am.
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 248 P.3d 193 Ariz. 2011
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 248 P.3d 193 Ariz. 2011
After Giley, however, this Court addressed the obligations imposed by § 20-259.01 P.2d 665 (1996).
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
when a DOI-approved form is used.” As support for this argument, , (Tallent I), decided by Division One of this court, and the supreme court’s , (Tallent II).
McEvoy v. Aerotek, Inc. 34 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
McEvoy v. Aerotek, Inc. 34 P.3d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Co., -68 , -67 (1996) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1081 (6th ed.1990)).
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Apache Junction 11 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Apache Junction 11 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Garcia v. Farmers Insurance 956 P.2d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Garcia v. Farmers Insurance 956 P.2d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Co., , our supreme court vacated our prior decision and held that a valid UIM offer does not require an explanation of UIM coverage.
State v. Korzuch 920 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1996
State v. Korzuch 920 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1996
Co., , see also Matter of U.S. Currency Amt.
Transportation Insuarnce v. Bruining 921 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1996
Transportation Insuarnce v. Bruining 921 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1996