A. No policy delivered or issued for delivery in this state and covering a subject of insurance resident, located or to be performed in this state, shall contain any condition, stipulation or agreement:
1. Requiring the policy to be construed according to the laws of any other state or country, except as necessary to meet the requirements of the motor vehicle financial responsibility laws or compulsory disability benefit laws of such other state or country.
2. Preventing the bringing of an action against the insurer for more than six months after the cause of action accrues.
3. Limiting the time within which an action may be brought to a period of less than two years from the time the cause of action accrues in connection with all insurances other than property and marine and transportation insurances. In property and marine and transportation policies such time shall be one year from the date of occurrence of the event resulting in the loss except that an insurer may extend such limitation beyond one year in its policy provisions.
B. Any such condition, stipulation or agreement shall be void, but such voidance shall not affect the validity of the other provisions of the policy.
Notes of Decisions
Zuckerman v. Transamerica Ins., 650 P.2d 441 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 24× “In reaching this conclusion, we do not ignore A.R.S. § 20-1115. However, we must recognize that the legislature has neither enacted a one-year statute of limitations nor required the adoption of such a provision in the contract.”
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Fed. Ins., 834 P.2d 827 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “In addition, Hartford asserted that the applicable statute of limitations should be two years pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-1115, rather than one year pursuant to A.”
Mission Ins. v. Nethers, 581 P.2d 250 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “Although it thus becomes unnecessary to consider Nethers’ argument, we note its misplaced reliance on A.R.S. § 20-1115, proscribing certain time limitations within which an action may be brought on an insurance policy but silent as to any limitation of the length of tim.”
WJ Kroeger Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 541 P.2d 385 (Ariz. 1975).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 20-1115 provides that no insurance policy operative in this state shall contain a condition limiting the time within which an action may be brought to a period of less than two years for this type of policy.”
Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Andersen, 763 P.2d 251 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “2d 441 (1982), the court held that while a policy provision shortening the applicable statutory period for bringing an action on an insurance policy is valid under A.R.S. § 20-1115(A)(3), ... the insurer may be estopped from raising a defense based upon such an adhesive clause…”
Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Dooley's of Tucson, Inc., 716 P.2d 1042 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “As we have discussed, fire insurance for the Tucson bar was deleted by direction of the Reno Group effective December 31, 1982, and coverage was formally denied by United States Fire on November 18, 1983.”
Adams v. N. Ins. Co. of New York, 493 P.2d 504 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 8× “Was Northern’s homeowners policy a property policy within the terms and meaning of A.R.S. § 20-1115, subsec. A, par. 3? 2. Was Northern’s policy provision, that suit must be commenced within twelve months after the inception of the loss, invalid ? 3.”
Kearney v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 526 P.2d 169 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
“But it is obvious, by the language and rationale of the decision, that the court was segregating different sections of the policy for application of the limitations statute.”
Wells-Stewart Constr. Co. v. Gen. Ins. Co. of Am., 461 P.2d 98 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969).
“” The insurance policy in this case is an “Inland Marine” policy and as such paragraph 15 is within the authorized limits of Section 20-1115, subsec. A, par. 3. We agree with Downing, supra.”
First Sec. Bank v. Fireman's Fund Ins., 472 P.2d 87 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 4× “Such is the contention of First Security and it cites A.R.S. § 20-1115. The pertinent portions are as follows: “A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-1115(A)(3) — 6 cases
Zuckerman v. Transamerica Ins., 650 P.2d 441 (Ariz. 1982).
“In reaching this conclusion, we do not ignore A.R.S. § 20-1115. However, we must recognize that the legislature has neither enacted a one-year statute of limitations nor required the adoption of such a provision in the contract.”
Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Andersen, 763 P.2d 251 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“2d 441 (1982), the court held that while a policy provision shortening the applicable statutory period for bringing an action on an insurance policy is valid under A.R.S. § 20-1115(A)(3), ... the insurer may be estopped from raising a defense based upon such an adhesive clause…”
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.