Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite UNIVERSAL UNDER. INS. CO. v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 433 P.2d 966.

26 citing documents.

Distinguished Allstate Ins. Co. v. GREAT AMERICAN INS. COS. 4 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Co., , 520, , 968 (1967) are distinguishable because the contest in each was between an excess clause and a simple pro-rata clause.
Distinguished Allstate Insurance v. Great American Insurance Companies 4 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Co., , 520, , 968 (1967) are distinguishable because the contest in each was between an excess clause and a simple pro-rata clause.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 792 P.2d 749 Ariz. 1990
Co., , a decision of this court, should be overruled.
STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. 677 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. 677 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
See Universal Underwriter’s , , 433 * Universal Underwriter’s Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company, 14 Ariz.App.
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Beeson 647 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Such a contribution theory is based upon the equitable principle that “where two companies insure the same risk and one is compelled to pay the loss, it is entitled to contribution from the other.”
Arizona Joint Underwriting Plan v. Glacier General Assurance Co. 631 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Continental Casualty Co. v. Signal Insurance 580 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Stevens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 519 P.2d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Co., , , State Farm Auto.
State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. CIVIL SERV. EMP. INS. 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
[1] After the trial court's denial of Allmon's motion for summary judgment on the third party complaint, , which held that the automobile owner's insurer had primary liability.
State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Civil Service Employees Insurance 509 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
1 After the trial court’s denial of Allmon’s motion for summary judgment on the third party complaint, , wjiich held that the automobile owner’s insurer had primary liability.
National Union Fire Insurance v. Truck Insurance Exchange 486 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1971
National Union Fire Insurance v. Truck Insurance Exchange 486 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1971
Co., , ” National Union urges, in reliance upon Mayflower, supra, and its progeny, that the provision of A.R.S.
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance 485 P.2d 552 Ariz. 1971
Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Allstate Insurance 483 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Co., , dictate our holding that the customer’s automobile liability insurer had the primary liability.
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance 474 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance 474 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Co., , ], or particular named individuals [Dairyland Mut.
Limon v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 465 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Dairyland Mutual Insurance Co. v. Andersen, supra
Civil Service Employees Insurance Co. v. Roberts 460 P.2d 48 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Civil Service Employees Insurance Co. v. Roberts 460 P.2d 48 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Co., , while the “drive other cars” coverage is not mentioned.
New York Underwriters Insurance v. Superior Court 456 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1969
Ny Underwriters v. Sup. Ct. in & for Cty of Maricopa 456 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1969
New York Underwriters Insurance v. Superior Court 456 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1969
Co., , said exclusion is illegal and void.
Ny Underwriters v. Sup. Ct. in & for Cty of Maricopa 456 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1969
Co., , said exclusion is illegal and void.
Northern Insurance v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1969
Canal Insurance v. State Farm Insurance Companies 436 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
The State Farm Insurance policy provided that coverage as to non-owned automobile “ * * * shall be excess over other collectible insurance.”