Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. CIVIL SERV. EMP. INS., 509 P.2d 725.

19 citing documents.

State Farm v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State Farm v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co., (stating that judicial estoppel “is not merely that a party has taken inconsistent positions in judicial proceedings”).
Rezaik v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Rezaik v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Wolford v. Gurule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Verde v. Stoneking Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., (noting that the litigants, in a claim against an insurance company, took an inconsistent position when they first argued that they purchased a vehicle to replace an insured vehicle, and then later argued that a different vehicle they borrowed was the replacement); Colonia Verde Homeowners Ass'n v. Kaufman
Acosta v. Phoenix Indemnity Insurance Company Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
insurer rejects a policy limit offer, “and it is later determined that the policy does provide coverage, the [insurer]’s liability for bad faith failure to settle is not excused by its earlier good faith belief in a lack of coverage.” 9 ¶19 P.2d 725 (1973), and further argues that, “[w]hen an insurer refuses to consider settlement opportunities because the company does not believe that the policy provides coverage for the claim, it acts at its peril even if the company has an ‘honest though erro
State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
Hrudka v. Hrudka 919 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Co., , 600, , 731 (1973)).
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 893 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Co., , 600, , 731 (1973); , Mecham v. City of Glendale, 15 Ariz.App.
Rogan v. Auto-Owners Insurance 832 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Co., , 602-03, , 733-34 (1973).
Equity General Insurance v. C & a Realty Co. 715 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass'n v. Steinert 696 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
the court concluded that the insurer was not liable for the alleged breach of a settlement obligation.
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 562 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1977
Co., , as follows: “[T]he essence of the doctrine of judicial estoppel is not merely that a party has taken inconsistent positions in judicial proceedings.
Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State 551 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Parsons v. Continental National American Group 550 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1976
Fulton v. Woodford 545 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Parsons v. Continental National American Group 535 P.2d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Pacific Insurance Co. of New York v. Del Monte 530 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975