Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 20
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-1109 (2026)

Statements as representation; effect of misrepresentation upon policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All statements and descriptions in any application for an insurance policy or in negotiations therefor, by or in behalf of the insured, shall be deemed to be representations and not warranties. Misrepresentations, omissions, concealment of facts and incorrect statements shall not prevent a recovery under the policy unless:

1. Fraudulent.

2. Material either to the acceptance of the risk, or to the hazard assumed by the insurer.

3. The insurer in good faith would either not have issued the policy, or would not have issued a policy in as large an amount, or would not have provided coverage with respect to the hazard resulting in the loss, if the true facts had been made known to the insurer as required either by the application for the policy or otherwise.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case: Prudential v. Est. of Rojo-Pacheco, 962 P.2d 213 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Prudential v. Est. of Rojo-Pacheco, 962 P.2d 213 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 28× “The trial court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment before trial that, upon proof of the elements of legal fraud in A.R.S. § 20-1109, Prudential could rescind its policy as to any liability coverage in excess of the minimum amount required by Arizona’s Motor Vehicle…”
Stewart v. Mut. of Omaha Ins., 817 P.2d 44 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 20× “The primary issues on appeal are whether the applications were fraudulent within the meaning of A.R.S. § 20-1109 and whether factual disputes concerning alleged misrepresentations by the Stew-arts to Mutual’s agents preclude summary judgment.”
Greves v. Ohio State Life Ins., 821 P.2d 757 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 37× “The motion also asserted that the Company’s basis for denying the claim was legally insufficient under A.R.S. § 20-1109 because (1) the Company could not prove that it would not have issued the policy, and (2) a rated policy did not meet the requirements of § 20-1109(3).”
Smith v. Repub. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 483 P.2d 527 (Ariz. 1971). · cites it 32× “The trial court also held that recovery was prevented under A.R.S. § 20-1109, discussed hereafter. Based on these conclusions, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant insurance company and rescinded the policy of insurance, granting plaintiff only the right to…”
Mann v. New York Life Ins. & Annuity Corp., 222 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Ariz. 2002). · cites it 15× “Relying on A.R.S. § 20-1109, Defendant argues that these misstatements were of such a nature as to permit Defendant to reject coverage under the terms of the agreement.”
Midland Risk Mgmt. Co. v. Watford, 876 P.2d 1203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 9× “§ 28-1170(F)(l) is inapplicable and the resolution of this issue is controlled by AR.S. § 20-1109, which provides in part: Misrepresentations, omissions, concealment of facts and incorrect statements shall not prevent a recovery under the policy unless: 1.”
Valley Farms, Ltd. v. Transcontinental Ins., 78 P.3d 1070 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “¶ 11 In its motion for summary judgment, Transcontinental relied on A.R.S. § 20-1109 to argue that Valley Farms had “made fraudulent misrepresentations of material facts in its insurance application [and that, h]ad the true facts been known, [Transcontinental] probably would not…”
State Comp. Fund v. Mar Pac Helicopter Corp., 752 P.2d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 8× “The insurer in good faith would either not have issued the policy, or would not have issued a policy in as large an amount, or would not have provided coverage with respect to the hazard resulting in the loss, if the true facts had been made known to the insurer as required…”
St. Joseph's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Reserve Life Ins., 742 P.2d 808 (Ariz. 1987). · cites it 3× “United Chambers has raised the argument that estoppel cannot prevail against the public policy enunciated by the legislature in A.R.S. § 20-1109. See Red Rover Copper Co.”
Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of United States v. Anderson, 727 P.2d 1066 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 5× “In an action for declaratory relief, Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (Equitable) sought rescission, pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-1109, of its major medical policy issued to Paul Anderson.”
Marine v. Allstate Ins. Co., 469 P.2d 121 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 10× “Misrepresentations, omissions, concealment of facts and incorrect statements shall not prevent a recovery under the policy unless: 1.”
Golden Rule Ins. v. Montgomery, 435 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2006). · cites it 7× “The insurer in good faith would either not have issued the policy, or would not have issued a policy in as large an amount, or would not have provided coverage with respect to the hazard resulting in the loss, if the true facts had been made known to the insurer as required…”
Show all 38 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-1109(1) — 4 cases
Cent. Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Peterson, 529 P.2d 1213 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
Valley Farms, Ltd. v. Transcontinental Ins., 78 P.3d 1070 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “¶ 11 In its motion for summary judgment, Transcontinental relied on A.R.S. § 20-1109 to argue that Valley Farms had “made fraudulent misrepresentations of material facts in its insurance application [and that, h]ad the true facts been known, [Transcontinental] probably would not…”
Principal Life Ins. Co. v. Emad Zaki (9th Cir. 2021).
Valley Farms v. Transcontinental Ins. Cna Cas. of California (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-1109(2) — 4 cases
Valley Farms, Ltd. v. Transcontinental Ins., 78 P.3d 1070 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “¶ 11 In its motion for summary judgment, Transcontinental relied on A.R.S. § 20-1109 to argue that Valley Farms had “made fraudulent misrepresentations of material facts in its insurance application [and that, h]ad the true facts been known, [Transcontinental] probably would not…”
Berneking v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. (D. Ariz. 2021).
Principal Life Ins. Co. v. Emad Zaki (9th Cir. 2021).
Valley Farms v. Transcontinental Ins. Cna Cas. of California (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-1109(3) — 5 cases
Greves v. Ohio State Life Ins., 821 P.2d 757 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “The motion also asserted that the Company’s basis for denying the claim was legally insufficient under A.R.S. § 20-1109 because (1) the Company could not prove that it would not have issued the policy, and (2) a rated policy did not meet the requirements of § 20-1109(3).”
Valley Farms, Ltd. v. Transcontinental Ins., 78 P.3d 1070 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “¶ 11 In its motion for summary judgment, Transcontinental relied on A.R.S. § 20-1109 to argue that Valley Farms had “made fraudulent misrepresentations of material facts in its insurance application [and that, h]ad the true facts been known, [Transcontinental] probably would not…”
Cent. Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Peterson, 529 P.2d 1213 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
Valley Farms v. Transcontinental Ins. Cna Cas. of California (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
Homesite Ins. Co. v. Jiang (D. Ariz. 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.