Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund, 950 P.2d 1147.

26 citing documents.

Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Orman v. Bowers Living Trust Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Orman v. Bowers Living Trust Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hall v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 383 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2016
Hall v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 383 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2016
Fund, , (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Scottsdale v. Fortiff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Scottsdale v. Fortiff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Fund, (finding that disclosure of an affidavit in a response to a dispositive motion was timely because it responded to an issue raised for the first time in the motion), vacated in part on other grounds, (“Disclosure, like all discovery, is not a game.
Wade v. Arizona State Retirement System 370 P.3d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Wade v. Arizona State Retirement System 370 P.3d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kamela v. One West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kamela v. One West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fund, Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc., -16, ¶ 27, -21 (App. 2000).
Keystone Floor & More, LLC v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 219 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Keystone Floor & More, LLC v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 219 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Fund, , (when action arises from statutory obligations, “peripheral involvement of a contract does not require the application of [AR.S.]
Modular Mining Systems, Inc. v. Jigsaw Technologies, Inc. Olson Blacutt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Modular Mining Systems, Inc. v. Jigsaw Technologies, Inc. Olson Blacutt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Fund, (noting § 12-341.01(A)’s requirement that claim arise from contract “has proven to be a matter of some difficulty for the courts when questions of contract are mixed or combined with other questions, such as tort law or statutory interpretation”).
California Casualty Insurance v. American Family Mutual Insurance 94 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
California Casualty Insurance v. American Family Mutual Insurance 94 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Fund, , (stating that section 12-341.01(A) applies to coverage disputes between insured and Insurance Guaranty Fund because “the Fund’s obligation is determined under the underlying insurance contract”).
Jangula v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 88 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Jangula v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 88 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Robert E. Mann Construction Co. v. Liebert Corp. 60 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Hanley v. Pearson 61 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Robert E. Mann Construction Co. v. Liebert Corp. 60 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund, , our supreme court discussed the meaning of “arising out of contract.” The court stated: When both contract and tort issues are presented, the mere existence of a contract somewhere in the transaction is not sufficient to support a fee award.
Hanley v. Pearson 61 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Fund, , (citing O’-73 , -98 (App.1992)).
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by